Why Ken Cuccinelli deserved to lose

[dannno]

If you agreed 100% with the LP candidate and 80% with the Republican candidate, you should vote for the Republican. You have a good chance at getting 80% of what you want vs. 100% chance of getting nothing you want voting LP, they don't ever win.

Ok, but being pro-war or pro-drug war is worth 25% each for me. Civil liberties are worth 25% as well. The other 25% is a real belief in limited government. So if they are not solid on each of those it would make it pretty hard for me to attain that 80%.

 

[CaptLouAlbano]

It has been stated several times, on this thread, that Sarvis pulled more votes from the Dems than the Repubs. If he hadn't run, Cooch would have lost by a bigger number.

It's also been stated several times on this forum that the exit polling was within the MOE, so honestly the claim cannot be made conclusively who Sarvis pulled more votes from. The exit polling sampled about 2500 voters in a contest that drew over 2 million votes. The spread was about 3 percent in the exit polling. For folks that spend countless hours on political forums, it's surprising that so many of you have no idea how to read polling data.

 

[CaptLouAlbano]

Ok, but being pro-war or pro-drug war is worth 25% each for me. Civil liberties are worth 25% as well. The other 25% is a real belief in limited government. So if they are not solid on each of those it would make it pretty hard for me to attain that 80%.

Honest questions for you here:

If a candidate is for the legalization of pot, but not the legalization (or decriminalization) of hard drugs, does that wipe out that 25% for you? And the same is posed for your other three broad categories. Does it take just one position within those broad categories to disqualify someone from receiving your financial support?

 

[69360]

Ok, but being pro-war or pro-drug war is worth 25% each for me. Civil liberties are worth 25% as well. The other 25% is a real belief in limited government. So if they are not solid on each of those it would make it pretty hard for me to attain that 80%.

Everyone has their own standards. Just be realistic is all I'm saying.

When somebody you mostly agree with has a real chance vs. somebody you totally agree with having no chance, vote for the one who can win. Something is better than nothing.

 

[Antischism]

Thanks for the post. Always great to hear both sides of the story.

 

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

 

[twomp]

We here at RPF seem to only care about gubernatorial races that the media tells us to care about. There was no candidate representing our interests in this race. All we had was bad and less bad. Why was this race so important? Because MSNBC, FOX, and CNN told us it was important?

 

[mad cow]

We here at RPF seem to only care about gubernatorial races that the media tells us to care about. There was no candidate representing our interests in this race. All we had was bad and less bad. Why was this race so important? Because MSNBC, FOX, and CNN told us it was important?

No,because Ron Paul and Rand Paul thought it was important enough to come to Virginia and campaign for one of the candidates.That is one reason that many here at RPF found this race important.

 

[Cleaner44]

That's a stupid assumption.

Going into IA RP had a fair chance. So I donated a bit of cash. When it was hopeless I didn't put anymore time or money into the race.

I didn't agree with Romney on hardly anything, so I did not vote for him. Cucinelli on the other hand is mostly good.

If you agreed 100% with the LP candidate and 80% with the Republican candidate, you should vote for the Republican. You have a good chance at getting 80% of what you want vs. 100% chance of getting nothing you want voting LP, they don't ever win.

If the Republican is somebody like Romney, this doesn't apply of course.

It wasn't an assumption, it was a question.

Who did you vote for?

 

[alucard13mm]

Rand and Ron are trying to build "allies" and "friends" with politicians or candidates for higher office so they can get endorsements from these same people come 2016. Rand will need every "allie" or "friend" he can get against the other primary republican candidates and against whatever the democrats will go with. I would assume having a governor endorsing a candidate in primaries and general would be paramount... especially in a state like Virginia.

Now Virginia will have a Democrat governor who will endorse Clinton or whoever will be candidate for team D.

At anyrate, R team did made some mistakes and most of the blame will be on R team. They got out maneuvered

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

No,because Ron Paul and Rand Paul thought it was important enough to come to Virginia and campaign for one of the candidates.That is one reason that many here at RPF found this race important.

I'm getting sick of the appeals to authority being thrown around. It's disconcerting. Anyone use their own critical thinking skills and brains anymore? It's one thing to agree with Ron or Rand on something they do, it's entirely another using them as justifications for agreement.

Also to the other poster who said Sarvis was my vote or pick or whatever, I all ready mentioned that he was bad, just less bad than Cooch and I would have voted for the LP (not Sarvis per se), just so I could see them get unrestricted ballot access for the next dozen years. I'm fine with the paulian competition in the GOP, and with competition from outside the GOP. The more the merrier. Whatever floats your boat. People acting like Cooch is a godsend to VA or the hypothetical Rand campaign are grasping. It's also known I've never been a fan of abandoning principle to score political 'got mah back' scratching. I'm also with Gunny that I could care mostly less about national politics and the game that is played for the Ring of Power. It's a massively losing effort, but you're more than welcome to awash yourself in their filth if it fits your fancy.

 

[fr33]

That's a stupid assumption.

Going into IA RP had a fair chance. So I donated a bit of cash.

No he didn't. But yeah I gave cash too. Too many RP supporters like to act delusional like he had a chance. He never did. It's crazy.

 

[mad cow]

I'm getting sick of the appeals to authority being thrown around. It's disconcerting. Anyone use their own critical thinking skills and brains anymore? It's one thing to agree with Ron or Rand on something they do, it's entirely another using them as justifications for agreement.

Also to the other poster who said Sarvis was my vote or pick or whatever, I all ready mentioned that he was bad, just less bad than Cooch and I would have voted for the LP (not Sarvis per se), just so I could see them get unrestricted ballot access for the next dozen years. I'm fine with the paulian competition in the GOP, and with competition from outside the GOP. The more the merrier. Whatever floats your boat. People acting like Cooch is a godsend to VA or the hypothetical Rand campaign are grasping. It's also known I've never been a fan of abandoning principle to score political 'got mah back' scratching. I'm also with Gunny that I could care mostly less about national politics and the game that is played for the Ring of Power. It's a massively losing effort, but you're more than welcome to awash yourself in their filth if it fits your fancy.

What part of my post that you quoted did you find to be untrue?I am well aware that there are some people here with no interest in politics in general and a dislike of the political actions and choices of Ron and Rand Paul in particular.That is why I said it is one reason that many (not all) here found the race important.

If members of RPF have no interest in who Ron Paul and Rand Paul support and campaign for,why are they here?

If you consider trying to get liberty-minded candidates,such as Gunny,a massively losing effort,washing yourself in filth,why are you here.

The mission statement of this site is clear as day.Thats it in green in my sig.

 

[alucard13mm]

Let's say you convinced someone else to vote the same way as you (2 votes), who'd you vote for?

A democrat who wants to legalize pedophilia, wants to kill all intellectuals and want to rape your wife or your husband. has 50 votes
A republican who likes war, wants to audit fed, wants to redistribute wealth, wants to legalize weed, wants to leave it up to the states. has 49 votes
A third party who hates war, wants to audit fed, wants free market, wants to legalize weed, and is against bail outs, wants to leave it up to states. has 5 votes.

I think we can all agree that voting based on "lesser of two evils" is bad in most cases because both candidates are usually the same establishment, big government, and is the same. But when you truly have one candidate that is the lesser of two evils... I think it might be time to do your duty to make sure that the greatest evil wont win.

Your duty is to make sure you elect someone who will have the best chance at protecting you and as much of the Constitution as possible, doesn't matter D, R, L, G, C or etc. In life you gotta make calculated decisions on which would get the best results.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

What part of my post that you quoted did you find to be untrue?I am well aware that there are some people here with no interest in politics in general and a dislike of the political actions and choices of Ron and Rand Paul in particular.That is why I said it is one reason that many (not all) here found the race important.

If members of RPF have no interest in who Ron Paul and Rand Paul support and campaign for,why are they here?

If you consider trying to get liberty-minded candidates,such as Gunny,a massively losing effort,washing yourself in filth,why are you here.

The mission statement of this site is clear as day.Thats it in green in my sig.

Do you reading comprehension? Apparently not. Also can you please stop with the damn appeal to authority fallacy. Just because Ron and Rand do something doesn't automatically make it 'right'. Damn that shit is annoying. Then again, I wouldn't put it past the appeal to authority (Constitution) types anyways to forgo making such basic argumentative errors. When someone asks what's the reason you did X, you're going to sit there straight faced and say 'because Ron and Rand did!'. Lol, listen to yourself.

PS: I guess I should spell it out in case your reading comprehension flies out the window again. Note I said NATIONAL POLITICS in reference to both supporting Gunny (who advocates LOCAL ACTION), and washing yourself in the filth (POTOMAC). Reading fail corrected. That'll be 3 credits, please.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Let's say you convinced someone else to vote the same way as you (2 votes), who'd you vote for?

A democrat who wants to legalize pedophilia, wants to kill all intellectuals and want to rape your wife or your husband. has 50 votes
A republican who likes war, wants to audit fed, wants to redistribute wealth, wants to legalize weed, wants to leave it up to the states. has 49 votes
A third party who hates war, wants to audit fed, wants free market, wants to legalize weed, and is against bail outs, wants to leave it up to states. has 5 votes.

I think we can all agree that voting based on "lesser of two evils" is bad in most cases because both candidates are usually the same establishment, big government, and is the same. But when you truly have one candidate that is the lesser of two evils... I think it might be time to do your duty to make sure that the greatest evil wont win.

Your duty is to make sure you elect someone who will have the best chance at protecting you and as much of the Constitution as possible, doesn't matter D, R, L, G, C or etc. In life you gotta make calculated decisions on which would get the best results.

I guess I'll be waiting here for eternity before Mccauliffe (whatever the fuck he spells his name) goes on a genocidal rampage against all intellectuals, rapes your S/O, and assures creepy old dude's raping little children. He's certainly not Joseph Stalin, but he's also not even as *barf* good as fascist Bloomberg. What I'm trying to say is your analogy is heinously disingenuous. If he was actually a Bolshevik or Khmer Rouge disciple than yeah, at that point I may just vote for the guy with the 49 votes, but to say Mccwhateverhisname is as bad as them...don't make me laugh.

 

[mad cow]

Do you reading comprehension? Apparently not. Also can you please stop with the damn appeal to authority fallacy. Just because Ron and Rand do something doesn't automatically make it 'right'. Damn that shit is annoying. Then again, I wouldn't put it past the appeal to authority (Constitution) types anyways to forgo making such basic argumentative errors. When someone asks what's the reason you did X, you're going to sit there straight faced and say 'because Ron and Rand did!'. Lol, listen to yourself.

PS: I guess I should spell it out in case your reading comprehension flies out the window again. Note I said NATIONAL POLITICS in reference to both supporting Gunny (who advocates LOCAL ACTION), and washing yourself in the filth (POTOMAC). Reading fail corrected. That'll be 3 credits, please.

Cuccinelli was running for Governor,not national office.Speaking of national office,get back to me when Gunny asks for support for Greg Brannon,running for U.S. Senator from N.C.
Oh,I will support and donate to Brannon,will you get butthurt if I ever mention that Gunny supports him?

I know that you won't support him because you consider getting liberty minded candidates elected a massively losing effort that washes you in filth and it would probably be a waste of my time to ask you to keep your negativity out of the Brannon threads.

 

[69360]

We here at RPF seem to only care about gubernatorial races that the media tells us to care about. There was no candidate representing our interests in this race. All we had was bad and less bad. Why was this race so important? Because MSNBC, FOX, and CNN told us it was important?

No because Rand could have had an endorsement from a sitting governor in a swing state.

Actually, what I've found of Republicans I agree with 80% is that, once elected, they tend to only deliver the 20% that I despised them for.

Sometimes, but you have to at least try.

It wasn't an assumption, it was a question.

Who did you vote for?

This sure seemed like an assumption to me.

So should we assume you voted for Romney then? Romney had a chance to win... Gary Johnson had none... Ron Paul had none.

But if you must know Johnson. Romney didn't pass my 80% and the differences between him and Obama weren't enough to matter.

No he didn't. But yeah I gave cash too. Too many RP supporters like to act delusional like he had a chance. He never did. It's crazy.

He was polling #1 or close to it going into IA. It was at least possible at that point. It was over after NH, if you thought it was possible after that, then yeah you were crazy.

 

[CaptLouAlbano]

Actually, what I've found of Republicans I agree with 80% is that, once elected, they tend to only deliver the 20% that I despised them for.

I am curious if you can cite any examples from the current Congress.

 

[erowe1]

Whatever the exit polls showed, they weren't available before the election happened.

The reason the Dems were funding Sarvis was definitely because they intended to get people who would otherwise have voted for Cuccinelli to vote for him. This is an old trick of theirs. It's not some new crazy theory that people just came up with for this race.

http://thenewsdispatch.com/articles/2010/11/02/news/local/doc4cce3b8551b74712212971.txt
http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20101028/NEWS02/310280073/

I don't like the vote stealing argument either. Nobody's entitled to anyone's vote. But call a spade a spade.

If I remember, Knott denounced it, rather than reveling in it like Sarvis's supporters, and mocking the Republicans for pointing out the obvious.