Libertarian Candidate Sarvis Not Invited to Va. Governor's Debate
But for one percentage point


A Washington Post poll put Libertarian Party candidate Robert Sarvis at 10 percent in the race to be the next governor of Virginia, but one poll is not enough to get him into a televised debate. The CBS affiliate organizing the a debate later in the month has relied on an average of polls at realclearpolitics.com that puts Sarvis at just 1 percentage point short of the 10 percent threshold required. Politico reports:
WDBJ7, the CBS affiliate organizing the Oct. 24 debate on the campus of Virginia Tech, announced late Thursday that Robert Sarvis has fallen just short of the 10 percent threshold for a third candidate to get on stage.
"As of this date, the third party candidate is polling at 9.0% based on the averages on realclearpolitics.com and would, therefore, not meet the guidelines agreed upon by the campaigns," emailed Kelly Zuber, the station's news director.
Sarvis' campaign responded on Twitter: "Goalposts kept moving. We got to 10%, so they chgd to avg, including weeks-old polls to drag avg down. We'll carry on, tho."
Ben Pershing at The Washington Post wrote a fairly lengthy analysis Wednesday of the complicated issues and negotiations around the thresholds of including third party candidates. Pershing explains what Sarvis' tweet alluded to:
More recently, as Sarvis's stock rose, the McAuliffe and Cuccinelli campaigns and WDBJ agreed to new language saying that the decision would "rely heavily on the averages of major polls as listed on RealClearPolitics," a nonpartisan site that aggregates poll results, as well as surveys released in the final three weeks before Oct. 10.
Reasons' Brian Doherty recently interviewed Sarvis here.
Today, Politico also made note of a Gallup poll indicating that a record number of Americans – 60 percent – believe America needs a third party. Read about that report here.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Is this going to be an actual debate with point and rebuttal, or just a 'moderator' throwing softball questions to the candidates?
Hmmm what do you think? What do ALL debates look like when only the D/R are "invited"?
I think it's pretty obvious WDBJ7 just has a problem with miscegenation. Either that or the two big parties conspired with CBS to keep the status quo.
These boys is miscegenated!
I belong to a certain secret society that I don't think needs to be named...
Crap, I went with the wrong quote. The one I like is:
These boys is not white! Hell, they ain't even old-timing!
*old-timey
If he should be invited under the rules, change the damn rules! WIH do you think this is, some sort of real debate?!
I won't defend Cuccinelli on this one. He and the rest of the political/media establishment are going of their way to be dicks.
""As of this date, the third party candidate is polling at 9.0% based on the averages on realclearpolitics.com and would, therefore, not meet the guidelines *agreed upon by the campaigns,"* emailed Kelly Zuber, the station's news director." [emphasis added]
Agreed upon by the campaigns? You mean Sarvis agreed to it?
Oh, you mean agreed to by the major-party candidates. Good for you to take off your mask there.
going *out* of their way to be dicks
How about the rules agreed upon by the voters, who seem to be asking for more choices besides scum and slime.
I'm focusing on the part where the media goes along with it.
Exactly. This is the problem, political parties will always look to their own interests. The willingness of the "News" organizations to assist them in this is a complete ethical breakdown.
true enough. The "News" orgs look after their own interests too. They're hanging on for dear life.
This point can't be made enough. By getting in bed with the political establishment, the media has been given control of the narrative and it can set its agenda by presenting it as political imperative.
"Politico also made note of a Gallup poll indicating that a record number of Americans ? 60 percent ? believe America needs a third party."
With some detailed questioning, I'm sure the favored 3rd party would be one that found ways to hand out more free shit without any ugly comments about how it is to be paid for.
Americans want a third party that will be nice, get along, and do a workmanlike job of creating more government. Rs and Ds tend to shout a lot and trip over each other as they compete to create more government.
That STILL wouldn't be terrible as it would get all the shitbag looters and moochers to leave Team Red and Team Blue and consolidate them in one place.
You're right, it would be less confusing. But to do that, the looters would have to show some honesty, so, not happening.
I think that memories of Perot still scare them. He got onto the debates and got a decent amount of the vote - he would have received more if he hadn't been flat-out cuckoo.
Now...now, Eduard....what you need to do is think of America like it's a car. And we need to lift up the hood and get in there and start fixing the engine. Cause the engine's broke, and the Democrats know it, and the Republicans know it, but they won't fix it.
I'll fix it.
*Ross Perot laugh*
PS I loved Perot, although I did not vote for him, as my vote was reserved for Satan that year.
You're not the only one, just one of the few to admit it.
Why would a libertarian love Perot, he was possibly the most statist major presidental contender since Nixon. He was a protectionist, for closed borders, a drug warrior, a gun grabber, wanted to expand medicare to all americans, etc
I remember a lady doctor whose letter to The American Spectator mentioned that knowing Perot was responsible for the Medicare software in use at the time was all the reason she needed not to vote for him.
Just because he's married to a woman of color doesn't mean he can't be a racist teabagger rightwingnut extremist anarchist. The less of those people that are allowed to participate in the political process, the better.
Wait a sec... How do we know he's married to the woman and not to one of the kids (or both! or all three!)?
Of course. Leave it to a racist teabagger to marry a race-traitor. They were made for each other!
Married....? I'd be willing to bet that those three people are actors being paid to be living props for his vile and unholy campaign of hate.
That he married her just shows how far he's willing to go to subjugate a Woman of Color.
i lol'd
This is what Jezebel actually believes.
Link??
No link, the above was something of a joke.
Ha! Seemed completely reasonable to me they would say that and I was interested in reading it. That says something about Jezebel, I think.
RACISTS!
You bastard! You beat me to it!
Now, now, there is enough racism here for us all to play the racist card. Can't we all enjoy yelling racism together?!?
No.
Racist.
A lot of people want a third party not to represent them, but because it would split the Republican vote, guaranteeing victories for their liberal Democrat candidates.
Ironically the opposite has happened here in Maine where "Independent" means "I don't want to compete with Democrats in the primary (Angus King, Elliot Cutler)," resulting in a Republican governor getting elected with thirty-something percent of the vote.
That's interesting. I wonder how often it would swing that way?
I know plenty of liberals who want nothing more than to see the Republican party split into libertarian and conservative parties, giving the majority vote to Democrats.
They are rather shortsighted in their thinking because a pretty good chunk of their voter base would switch to supporting one of the other two.
A "Conservative" Republican party based on Populist Mercantilism and American Greatness Nostalga would pretty easily be able to take huge chunks if not an outright majority of Organized labor who are uncomfortable with immigration and social liberalism
Then a pretty good sized chunk of gays, Hipsters and technogeeks would drop the Democratic party for a true small government laissez faire in both the bedroom and the marketplace party that was no longer tied at the hip to social conservatives.
True the Democratic party would still probably be the largest of the 3 but it would be a lot closer to 30D/30I/25R/15L than the 40D/30I/20R/10L split they imagine
Gary Johnson rules v2.0
You can contact the station (as if it does any good), through their website: http://www.wdbj7.com/about/contact-us
Kelly Zuber
Station Manager
kzuber@wdbj7.com
"Thank you for your interest in the debate. The guidelines for the debate were negotiated by the two major party candidates. WDBJ7 originally recommended that the door be opened and a reasonable threshold be set for Mr. Sarvis to participate. I believe no other debate organizers had even given him that opportunity. The particulars of the language were negotiated by the major party candidates. Once the agreements were signed, WDBJ7 was bound to the rules or risked losing the opportunity for the voters of Virginia to hear any of the office seekers debate the issues."
The guidelines for the debate were negotiated by the two major party candidates...The particulars of the language were negotiated by the major party candidates.
Dear Mr. Sheep,
Thank you very much for your input on the dinner menu tonight. Unfortunately the lions have already selected the menu.
+10 bolts of wool
My first thought was, "What a lovely lookinbg family!"
Does that disqualify from from the commentariat 🙁
I haz a sad - I'll try to react more better next time.
The Fourth Estate. Right.
An interesting, and fairly common, example of how the behavior of the two major parties refutes the conventional wisdom about LP candidates being "Republican spoilers". If that were the case, you'd see the Democrat demanding the inclusion of Sarvis, or perhaps even debating Sarvis alone if Cucinelli declined (a la Reagan v. Anderson '80). In reality, though, the Dems know a strong Libertarian candidates cuts just as much into their hide from the left.
Perhaps that it's that they already have their strategy mapped out and have no plans for a serious third-party challenge, it's a wild card whose outcome they can't predict or feel any control over.
I think it's more that both R and D candidates are aware that a significant part of the populace loathes them, and don't want someone asking them awkward questions that can be used against them.
They are at least subliminally aware that there is a (tiny but non-zero) chance that the libertarian here might actually beat them if he got lots of free press.
Which is kind of what Eduard said.
Hopefully enough VA voters, even without seeing any debates, will feel like casting a protest vote, and the winner will have only a plurality, much as Bill Clinton found himself president with 57% of the votes against him (even if he did claim a "mandate for change").
Well based on polling, Sarvis is only taking one point more from the R then the D, when compared to the poll question with him omitted. His largets share is from independents. So yeah, hes taking almost equally from both, with onyl slightly more from the R.
Of course they can't let him into the process, tough to spin him as a racist teabagger when he's in an interracial marriage
It's too bad that most people think their only choices are either the giant douche or the turd sandwich.
Curious optics - Virginia, a confederate state, only lets white candidates with white spouses in its gubernatorial debate - Just Sayin!