Why Ken Cuccinelli deserved to lose

[erowe1]

Before the election:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2...hurting_dem_in_virginia_gop_still_losing.html

And when did the big Democrat donor make his donation?

 

[cjm]

No,, actually,, I said I favored Sarvis because of his position on Constitutional Carry and on Restoration of Rights.

That was in one of the first of Oh So Many threads on this subject.

I went back and checked. You are right. I'm sorry for mischaracterizing your position on this point.

 

[AgentOrange]

Useless bickering. Myself, I vote for the candidate I believe to be best....regardless of that candidates chances of winning. I am amazed that people are so into voting for a "winner", acting like they are cheering on their favorite sports team, instead of just voting for the best candidate. The best candidate for me, is almost always a 3rd party candidate....when there is only a democrat or republican candidate running, then I will vote for one of those. But honestly, voting Democrat or Republican usually feels like more of a "wasted" vote, then voting for a 3rd party candidate. I know that in the vast majority of cases, the Democrat or Republican candidate will vote the status quo, regardless of any promises they make, at least with the 3rd party candidate, I can have hope that they may be sincere about making real changes. Instead of criticizing people for not voting for a candidate that is supposedly "more likely to win", work on developing a better candidate to attract those voters.

 

[CaptLouAlbano]

Useless bickering. Myself, I vote for the candidate I believe to be best....regardless of that candidates chances of winning. I am amazed that people are so into voting for a "winner", acting like they are cheering on their favorite sports team, instead of just voting for the best candidate. The best candidate for me, is almost always a 3rd party candidate....when there is only a democrat or republican candidate running, then I will vote for one of those. But honestly, voting Democrat or Republican usually feels like more of a "wasted" vote, then voting for a 3rd party candidate. I know that in the vast majority of cases, the Democrat or Republican candidate will vote the status quo, regardless of any promises they make, at least with the 3rd party candidate, I can have hope that they may be sincere about making real changes. Instead of criticizing people for not voting for a candidate that is supposedly "more likely to win", work on developing a better candidate to attract those voters.

I determine the "best candidate" based not only on their stances, but their ability to do what it takes to have a realistic shot at winning (ie. experience, fundraising, grassroots, etc). Those factors are what warrants whether or not I will support a candidate with my money and my time.

Truthfully, if you want to vote for someone regardless of their chances of winning, then why not write you own name in every time? Can't find someone you agree with more than yourself.

 

[cjm]

Useless bickering. Myself, I vote for the candidate I believe to be best....regardless of that candidates chances of winning. I am amazed that people are so into voting for a "winner", acting like they are cheering on their favorite sports team, instead of just voting for the best candidate.

The best candidate? What you are saying is you choose the candidate that best matches your views and you call that the best candidate. What others are saying is that we look at which candidate best matches our views but also take into account their ability to win the election. We're simply considering more data when deciding which is the best candidate, not "voting for a winner." Here's my take from another thread, feel free to dismiss me as another GOP party hack:

I have stated on other threads that both Cuccinelli and Sarvis would advance liberty even if only incrementally. They are both flawed candidates, but both acceptable. I will support the candidate that has the best chance of winning while meeting minimum acceptable standards. If Sarvis' and Cuccinelli's percentages were reversed, I would be supporting Sarvis. If I found Cuccinelli unacceptable, I would be supporting Sarvis. But I have found Cuccinelli to be an acceptable candidate and he's within reach. So I'm going with Ken.

 

[Ender]

I determine the "best candidate" based not only on their stances, but their ability to do what it takes to have a realistic shot at winning (ie. experience, fundraising, grassroots, etc). Those factors are what warrants whether or not I will support a candidate with my money and my time.

Truthfully, if you want to vote for someone regardless of their chances of winning, then why not write you own name in every time? Can't find someone you agree with more than yourself.

No, what you have done is bought into the system.

The 2 party system is designed to keep out people that may spoil the status quo and actually change politics. Your "best candidate" has already been chosen for you and you are happily cooperating.

In reality, what needs to be done is people joining together and changing the system; standing together and saying "HELL NO!"

 

[CaptLouAlbano]

No, what you have done is bought into the system.

The 2 party system is designed to keep out people that may spoil the status quo and actually change politics. Your "best candidate" has already been chosen for you and you are happily cooperating.

In reality, what needs to be done is people joining together and changing the system; standing together and saying "HELL NO!"

Total bullshit. Cuccinelli was not an establishment candidate, but instead was put forth by the grassroots and secured the nomination at the VA State Convention because he had the support of the people. The establishment's hand picked candidate withdrew because he did not have the support.

And furthermore if the "2 party system is designed to keep out people that may spoil the status quo and actually change politics", then perhaps you can explain how Massie, Amash, Rand, Sanford and their allies in Congress all won their seats, since none of them were the establishment's hand picked candidates.

The reality is that we are standing together and saying "Hell No" each and every primary season when grassroots candidates defeat the establishment candidates. Does it happen all the time? Of course not, but it is happening more and more and that is how change will come to the political landscape.

 

[cjm]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to CaptLouAlbano again.

 

[Ender]

Total bullshit. Cuccinelli was not an establishment candidate, but instead was put forth by the grassroots and secured the nomination at the VA State Convention because he had the support of the people. The establishment's hand picked candidate withdrew because he did not have the support.

And furthermore if the "2 party system is designed to keep out people that may spoil the status quo and actually change politics", then perhaps you can explain how Massie, Amash, Rand, Sanford and their allies in Congress all won their seats, since none of them were the establishment's hand picked candidates.

The reality is that we are standing together and saying "Hell No" each and every primary season when grassroots candidates defeat the establishment candidates. Does it happen all the time? Of course not, but it is happening more and more and that is how change will come to the political landscape.

I do not see YOU standing with anyone that does not spout the party line. Anyone that opposes you is not treated to fair dialog and an interesting learned discussion, but instead subjected to name-calling and insults.

When YOU can actually carry on polite conversations about candidates, then i will begin to believe that you are a liberty-minded poster. Until then you seem only the typical neocon, ready to bash anyone who does not agree with your status quo marketing.

 

[69360]

No, what you have done is bought into the system.

The 2 party system is designed to keep out people that may spoil the status quo and actually change politics. Your "best candidate" has already been chosen for you and you are happily cooperating.

In reality, what needs to be done is people joining together and changing the system; standing together and saying "HELL NO!"

Easier said than done. Present a viable other party first. Until then people who want to make a difference will work with what we have.

 

[CaptLouAlbano]

I do not see YOU standing with anyone that does not spout the party line. Anyone that opposes you is not treated to fair dialog and an interesting learned discussion, but instead subjected to name-calling and insults.

When YOU can actually carry on polite conversations about candidates, then i will begin to believe that you are a liberty-minded poster. Until then you seem only the typical neocon, ready to bash anyone who does not agree with your status quo marketing.

So, you resort to ad hominem attacks, when the facts don't jive with your line of bullshit?

Answer the question. If the "2 party system is designed to keep out people that may spoil the status quo and actually change politics", then perhaps you can explain how Massie, Amash, Rand, Sanford and their allies in Congress all won their seats, since none of them were the establishment's hand picked candidates.

Or maybe you cannot answer it because it fucks up your little world view and you'd have to come to the realization that you are wrong.

 

[phill4paul]

moveon.arghhhhh.

 

[Ender]

So, you resort to ad hominem attacks, when the facts don't jive with your line of bullshit?

Answer the question. If the "2 party system is designed to keep out people that may spoil the status quo and actually change politics", then perhaps you can explain how Massie, Amash, Rand, Sanford and their allies in Congress all won their seats, since none of them were the establishment's hand picked candidates.

Or maybe you cannot answer it because it fucks up your little world view and you'd have to come to the realization that you are wrong.

Ron Paul:
The strongest message can be sent by rejecting the two-party system, which in reality is a one-party system with no possible chance for the changes to occur which are necessary to solve our economic and foreign policy problems.


Article by Harry Browne about overcoming the 2 party system. He is speaking primarily about the LP but it can apply to any party.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/2004/11/harry-browne/the-libertarian-vote-total/

Harry Browne:

America has a 2-party system, but not because of popular demand.

The Democrats and Republicans have legislated third parties into irrelevance — using five principal methods: donation limits, reporting laws, campaign subsidies, the Debate Commission, and ballot-access laws.

To give you just two examples of the impact of these hurdles:

• In 2000, the presidential campaign raised $2.6 million, but $250,000 of that had to be diverted into ballot-access drives in just two states: Pennsylvania and Arizona. That's money that could have gone into advertising, but instead was of no value in campaign outreach.

• In my home state of Tennessee, Republicans and Democrats are listed on the ballot with their party labels. But candidates of any other parties must be listed as "Independent." Thus anyone entering the polling booth determined to vote against the two major parties must know already which third-party candidate to vote for. If he doesn't, he'll be afraid to choose among the "Independents," not knowing which of them might be a Nazi or a Communist.

These are just two examples of the legislative barriers placed in the way of third parties. To list all the various hurdles would fill a good-sized book.

C.S. Lewis:
I feel a strong desire to tell you — and I expect you feel a strong desire to tell me — which of these two errors is the worse [becoming an individualist or becoming a totalitarian]. That is the devil getting at us. He always sends errors into the world in pairs — pairs of opposites. And he always encourages us to spend a lot of time thinking which is the worse. You see why, of course? He relies on your extra dislike of the one error to draw you gradually into the opposite one. But do not let us be fooled. We have to keep our eyes on the goal and go straight through between both errors. We have no other concern that that with either of them.

 

[CaptLouAlbano]

Ron Paul:
The strongest message can be sent by rejecting the two-party system, which in reality is a one-party system with no possible chance for the changes to occur which are necessary to solve our economic and foreign policy problems.

And yet, since Ron spoke those words, every single candidate that he has endorsed and campaigned for has been in the Republican party. So much for rejecting the system.

As far as Browne, he was good on economics, but sucked when it came to political strategy.

 

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

 

[NIU Students for Liberty]

Speaking mathematically - it's kinda/sorta half as bad as communism.

In communism you have one party that conducts a primary/caucus at the local level, then at the next level up and so forth.

I don't quite remember the exact quote, but Jesse Ventura said something along the lines of: "The U.S. is better than Russia because it has one more party."