Libertarian Robert Sarvis Pulls 6.6 Percent in Virginia Governor's Race, Almost Five Times Better Than Gary Johnson Last November

Maybe some good news

Sarvis campaign

In a race where he was polling with a double-digit lead only last week, Democrat Terry McAuliffe won the Virginia governor's race in a squeaker tonight, with a margin of victory of just over 2 percent, receiving 47.6 percent to Republican Ken Cuccinelli's 45.42 percent. For libertarians the bigger news might be that Libertarian candidate Robert Sarvis pulled 6.6 percent, or more than 142,000 votes, five times the vote total Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson won in the state last November, despite a significantly lower turnout. Democrats tried to make the election against Cuccinelli a referendum on "Tea Party extremists," and by that measure they lost, Cuccinelli's margin of defeat being about two-thirds the size of Mitt Romney's last year.

Cuccinelli supporters called Sarvis a spoiler before the polling places even opened, with Ron Paul going so far as to say it would be "insane" for anyone to vote for Sarvis because he expressed support for the idea of a mileage tax, something the Reason Foundation's Adrian Moore believes is worth a try. At campaign rallies, Sarvis pointed out the tax doesn't require GPS tracking—a standard odometer already tracks mileage. Scott Shackford pointed out last week that Sarvis drew support both from Democrats and Republicans, something that suggests libertarianism's potency as a catalyst for coalition-building around issues of freedom. Nevertheless, some Republicans disappointed by such a close loss are sure to blame Sarvis anyway, believing his votes "belonged" to the GOP, an argument Nick Gillespie rightly took down last week too.

In the other governor's race tonight, Libertarian Kenneth Kaplan won .6 percent of the vote, the same as Gary Johnson in that state last year, in an election that saw Republican Chris Christie win re-election in a landslide in the traditionally blue state of New Jersey.

Read Brian Doherty's interview with Sarvis from last month here, and an overview of the Sarvis and Kaplan campaigns from just yesterday here.

Comments

[Virginian]

For the record, I chose none of the above and abstained. But I want to ask this question, in a serious way. Not trolling or looking for a flame war. I genuinely want to know the opinion of the folks here.

What could Cuccinelli have done, short of adopting the entire libertarian platform, to earn the libertarian vote? His faith is deep and sincere, even if it leads him to places I disagree with him, so I doubt he'd change his stance on abortion. So what could he have done to won over the 6.6 percent?

[Brian D]

Short of scoring more points than the Bears, what could the Packers have done to win the game Monday night?

[DarrenM]

Who was the third team playing?

[The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc]

Firstly, my deepest condolences on having to endure 4 years of McAuliffe. But let's hope he's so awful more people in Virginia realize what Clinton-style governance is all about.

Secondly, I would have voted for Cooch for the simple reason that there are so many checks and balances on the governor's power that there's no way he'd end up banning 3/4 of all sex acts.

And that's really the thing, people become so invested in the candidate and project their hatred of the other party onto them that they forget that we aren't electing an absolute monarch.

[Rod Flash]

I voted for Sarvis, but I'm not sure McAuliffe will be so bad. I'm assuming he'll spend his 4 years finding ways to transfer tax dollars into his own pockets, and won't really have that much time to spend screwing up the state.

Plus we have the excellent control measure of single term governors. I have friends in the People's Republic of Maryland who point out that it means that even a good governor can't run again. But I just reply that no one really believes in such a mythical creature.

So my options were 4 years of somebody who sucks vs 4 years of somebody else who sucks vs 4 years of somebody who couldn't possibly get elected. I chose option C. No matter what happens I can say "it's not my fault!".

[Cytotoxic]

Single terms are EXCELLENT. Prevented a lot of dictatorship in Central America.

[Francisco d Anconia]

Said this the other day, half joking, but the more I thought about it the more it made sense.

What is the cutoff? Where will I burn my vote in protest vs accepting a Republican that's kinda libertarian?

Answer: 75% libertarian.

If you accept the loose definition of libertarian as socially liberal and fiscally conservative, both sides are already 50% libertarian. So how pure does a candidate with a chance of winning have to be before I'll give him my vote over the protest candidate. If he's more libertarian than conservative or more libertarian than liberal, he's got it.

As the world swings more libertarian, the required percentage may go up, but right now, the world will be improving at 75%.

[Virginian]

I meant more in the way of specifics. Like, if he promised to pursue a WA or CO style marijuana regime, what he get your vote?

[Francisco d Anconia]

It would depend on where he stood on the remainder of the social issues.

If he said he was for less restrictive drug laws, gay marriage and against NSA spying, that would probably be enough libertarian cred for a vote.

[IDPNDNT]

Are Republicans really fiscally conservative though?

Republicans aren't any more fiscally conservative than Democrats. They just rather spend your money on excessive defense rather than excessive entitlements.

Not trying to be argumentative, but figured i'd point that out.

[Francisco d Anconia]

Your right. That's why I called it a loose definition. Both sides have recently forsaken their supposed principles. The right spends like drunken sailors and the left really doesn't give a shit about civil liberties...

[DarrenM]

Both sides have recently forsaken their supposed principles.

If the LP ever gained enough power, you can be sure they would do the same thing. That's what nice about being a small third party that never wins anything. You can afford to be 'principled'.

[JustaThought]

Please refrain from stupid comments like "spends like drunken Sailors". As a retired Sailor, drunk or sober, we actually stopped spending once we were out of money.

And for future reference, Sailor, Soldier, Airman, Marine and Coastguardsman are capitalized as proper nouns.

[The Immaculate Trouser]

Yeah, that state VA defense spending has really shot up under the Republicans.

I understand where you're going in terms of national politics, but in terms of state politics there is a significant difference as demonstrated by how R states operate as opposed to their D counterparts.

[JWatts]

Are Republicans really fiscally conservative though?

And in the same vein, are Democrats really socially Liberal?

[Adam330]

"If you accept the loose definition of libertarian as socially liberal and fiscally conservative, both sides are already 50% libertarian."

How do you figure? Democrats SAY they are socially liberal, but that really only applies to a few pet issues. Same with conservatives claims they are fiscally conservative.

[R C Dean]

Where will I burn my vote in protest vs accepting a Republican that's kinda libertarian?

Stop it already with the "wasted vote" thing. You vote for the Repub who is kinda libertarian if he's the most libertarian choice on the ballot.

Vote for who you want. Its really no more complicated than that. Every vote has equal value, regardless of whether it was cast for the winner.

[DarrenM]

1. I wonder if a parliamentary system of government wouldn't be better.

2. The only wasted vote is one that is not cast. Even voting third party, you at least send a message. With no vote, politicians are free to ignore you.

[Emmerson Biggins]

I dunno. If he wants to install a tracking device in everybody's car, then he obviously just doesn't get it. I can't get past that.

[Calidissident]

I don't live in VA. At a minimum, though I would say he would need to be against the WOD (or at least in favor of substantial changes) and not support laws outlawing homosexual acts (even if he couldn't Constitutionally do that, someone who supports that just doesn't get liberty, and cannot be trusted IMO).

[The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc]

But ask yourself this: what's more likely, a Democrat passing gun control and raising taxes and regulations or a hardcore so-con banning abortion, gay sex, and blowjobs?

If politics is the art of possible I think the Democrat's darkest goals are much more possible than the so-con Republican's.

[Calidissident]

I didn't say I'd vote for McAuliffe, just that I wouldn't vote for Cuccinelli

[The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc]

Right, and I'm not saying you are morally obligated to support Cuccinelli or that your failure to do so is a vote for McAuliffe.

I'm only saying that the candidate that could give you most things that you want and has little chance of doing the bad things you don't want is a rational choice given the alternative of abstaining or voting the other guy.

[Calidissident]

If there's a better candidate, why not support him? Let's not pretend that Cuccinelli is a libertarian except when it comes to sex. There are many other positions conservatives and libertarians split. He seems to have a pretty good record on economic issues, but I'm nonetheless pretty skeptical of most Republicans on these matters, as they tend to disappoint. There are some I trust (Rand Paul, Amash, even someone like Cruz for the most part). Have to actually see Cuccinelli as governor to really believe him. As I said, someone who thinks consensual sex should be illegal just because it involves two guys just does not get the concept of liberty. The odds that that's going to be the only issue he lets down (or would have let down) libertarians on is very low.

[DarrenM]

If there's a better candidate, why not support him?

Why not just write in your own name?

[Rach]

I agree with this; think is some form of reality when voting. The SoCon is not ever going to be able move the ball on private acts between people (*maybe* abortion a little), more likely than not the pledges were to play to the base.

The Democrat has a far better likelihood of raising taxes and passing gun control.

With the revelation that Obama supporters pored money into the Libertarians campaign in this state tells me that they knew that Librarian was harming the Republican more than the Democrat.

So for those who want to say "don't blame me I did not vote for either one" -- I want to say your sorta did.

[grrizzly]

Cuccinelli shouldn't have ever proposed making sodomy a crime. There's no way no how to make this culture war posturing compatible with libertarian sensibilities.

[The Immaculate Trouser]

Indeed, that was a really dumb moment.

IMO he would have won without that asinine bit of political theater. As is, he did better than I expected.

[Generic Stranger]

Yeah; I'd have been a hell of a lot more sympathetic to the guy without that bullshit.

[jesse.in.mb]

My understanding was he was just excited to use the sodomy ban to pile extra charges on someone who had solicited oral from a minor, but was well aware that it wouldn't ban consensual adult behavior. (Am I remembering this correctly?)

It's way better that he's interested in selectively enforcing laws to feather a conviction rather than trying to prohibit adult sexual behavior...right?

I think somebody else found quotes from him saying he'd ban consensual adult sodomy if he could, so it's kind of a twofer.

[The Immaculate Trouser]

That is an accurate assessment of the situation, but complex discussion of a hot button issue is just asking for it. Rand Paul had a similar moment with the CRA, but was able to recover because he 1) had more money and 2) was able to forcefully defuse this as a political issue. For whatever reason, the Cooch did not fight this out of the gate and his campaign was seriously outspent.

Bottom line, candidates running for office are not philosophers or religious leaders and should learn to shut the hell up about issues that are not going to win them votes.

[Bill Dalasio]

I'd suggest there's a pretty big difference between a principled opposition to the CRA and wanting to lock up homosexuals. There's a clear, rational justification to say people should be able to use their own property as they see fit. I have yet to hear a rational justification for the latter.

[DarrenM]

"This case is not about sexual orientation, but using current law to protect a 17 year-old girl from a 47 year-old sexual predator," Cuccinelli spokeswoman Caroline Gibson said in a statement.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....e/?print=1

[JustaThought]

WTFO? Do you really believe he was trying to make sodomy a crime? Do you even have a clue what you're talking about? Cuccinelli understood that the precedent set by Lawrence v. Texas could not/would not be overturned by the Supreme Court. His argument was that the precedent set was only applicable between consenting adults.

His argument was that it was not applicable to actions between adults and minor children. This was primarily to ensure a conviction would be upheld AND ensure a longer period of incarceration for pedophiles.

I had to look all this up when I saw the first commercial since it certainly didn't pass the smell test. Really folks, what politician in their right mind would be so stupid in this day and age? Almost every political attack ad for/against either McAuliffe or Cuccinelli were rife with BS. It was YOUR responsibility to look deeper into the issues instead of allowing your emotions to either accept or ignore what was being presented to you.

[Mike M.]

Almost everyone who voted for Sarvis also voted for the democrat attorney general.

The Sarvis voters were overwhelmingly cosmotarian dipshits who support putting a mandatory GPS in every car and taxing us by the mile. There's absolutely nothing Cuccinelli could ever do to win them over.

[Neoliberal Kochtopus]

Can you cite to the "mandatory GPS" thing or did you just make that up?

[Mike M.]

And right on cue, here's Randian, the standard bearer for who I'm talking about.

[Neoliberal Kochtopus]

It's a simple question. If you can't answer it, just say so.

[Mike M.]

I don't answer questions from people who change their screen name from "Randian" to something else. Which is a bit of a trollish, dick move by the way.

[Ivoted4KODOS]

By your reasoning, everyone that voted for Cuchinelli wants to outlaw BJ's, throw homosexuals in jail and make academic research misconduct a criminal matter.

Also, I don't care what your view of SSM is, you should be bothered by an AG that is willing to distort laws to get convictions. Using and supporting sodomy laws to convict child molesters opens up the way for prosecutor abuse of such laws and increases the chances of conviction of harmless sexual behavior in the future (consensual sex between adults).

It is the equivalent of saying home brewing of beer should be illegal so the AG can more easily convict people who give beer to 3rd graders.

[Wags]

Not make his faith a reason to steal liberties away from others.

[eyeroller]

What could Cuccinelli have done, short of adopting the entire libertarian platform, to earn the libertarian vote?

If he wants to earn the libertarian vote, he probably shouldn't run as a Republican.

[Cytotoxic]

Then libertarians shouldn't be surprised when they have no influence.

[John Aronson]

Cuccinelli's fault was that he tried to be 100% with his Virginia christian right base to the exclusion of everything else.

Libertarians would have swung to him if he had simply given them any affirmative reason to vote for him. What is anathema to any libertarian is entraining the power of the state to impose criminal penalties on any relationship or course of conduct between consenting adults.

Libertarians who are also constitutional democratic-republicans will tolerate the position that things like gay marriage and abortion are for the several states to decide under their own constitutions. But if these are banned it must clearly appear that banning reflects the considered opinion of all of the people being governed - not just a faction that has managed to capture control of government for the moment. Even then, criminalizing such conduct will not be tolerated.

If Cuccinelli had strongly opposed all, and not just some, of federal excesses under the commerce clause, he would have done better.

In the end, there was simply too much of Rick Santorum about Cuccinelli to sit comfortably with most libertarians.

The message to the christian right is that all good libertarians will leave you alone in your communities so long as you leave us alone in ours.

[Juice]

His faith is deep and sincere

???

[crazyfingers]

The guy didn't come across as particularly libertarian. He wouldn't rule out tax hikes and couldn't point out places in the government to cut. He believed in "mainstream economics" -- what does that entail, reading and agreeing with Thomas Friedman columns? Oh, and the mileage thing -- any actual libertarian would point out that the government already has more than enough money to maintain the roads if the funding was actually allocated correctly. Not to mention the "odometer readings" would certainly transform into something much more nefarious over time, and it is incredibly naive to not believe otherwise.

[Calidissident]

I would agree that Sarvis doesn't seem to be a radical libertarian, and I do oppose the mileage tax, even without the GPS, but it's important to note where he's coming from on that - he supports user fees, or taxes similar to user fees, to support government as much as possible, which is a very libertarian ideal.

Here's the section on taxes from his website:

"Eliminating the Car Tax, which is unpopular;
Eliminating the BPOL, Machine & Tools, Merchant Capital and other business taxes that hide the cost of taxation, burden employers, and reduce business activity;
Eliminating, or dramatically reducing, the income tax, which reduces employment and lowers take-home pay;
Moving to a uniform consumption tax on all final retail sales of goods and services.
Reforming property taxes by excluding, or lowering the rate applied to, improvements to land;
Prefering, where possible, user fees to general taxes."

[Calidissident]

And here's a part on other economic issues:

"Focusing economic regulation and law enforcement on the protection of rights and preservation of an equal playing field for all;
Eliminating ALL regulations that insulate market incumbents from competition;
Ending ALL government subsidies of specific industries or companies;
Removing ALL special tax and regulatory treatment of particular industries or companies;
Keeping government neutral with regard to technological solutions, investment decisions, business inputs and business methods, etc.;
Getting rid of discretionary funds and returning the money to taxpayers."

[crazyfingers]

There's what his website platform says and what he said when pressed for details in interviews.

There's a reason he got five times Gary Johnson's vote and it's not because he was preaching libertarianism.

[Virginian]

Which admittetly is a very hard sell here in VA. Probably half the state is dependent on government spending of one form or another. The entire Norfolk area, the entire NoVA sprawl, all the po folks in Southside Virginia and of course the inner cities....that's a lot of votes for big government in both red and blue flavors.

[crazyfingers]

The county map on politico looked overwhelmingly red to me. It seems like practically the entire state is being held hostage by Fairfax county. Probably how New York State feels about NYC.

[Virginian]

Well I was speaking of the bipartisan nature of the statism here. The whole Norfolk/Virginia Beach area would not exist if not for naval spending. Which, BTW, goes back to George Washington making sure one of the original six frigates was built in his home state. And plenty of the federal workers in Fairfax are "national security" or law enforcement people who vote GOP.

[John C. Randolph]

I'll never forgive that selfish bastard Cuccinelli for splitting the vote and keeping Sarvis out of the governor's mansion. What a prick.

-jcr

[Winston]

Democrats tried to make the election against Cuccinelli a referendum on "Tea Party extremists," and by that measure they lost

Oh Reason, trying naively to pretend a Dem victory is not a Dem victory.

[Winston]

Republican Chris Christie win re-election in a landslide in the traditionally blue state of New Jersey

Since Republicans need to win Blue states in order to win the White House does this prove that Christie is the way forward for the GOP?

[Corning]

There are more republican governors then Democrat governors.

Are you sure your premise is accurate?

[Winston]

Is Rand Paul more electable than Christie? I'm not sure. I've seen some polls showing Hillary/Biden will defeat Christie by a smaller margin than Rand.

[Some call me Tim?]

Who cares? Christie is just an opportunist who happens to have an R next to his name. If he was running in a Red state he would be running as a Democrat.

Christie would only be marginally better than Hillary or Biden.

[Winston]

Well Welch and Gillespie are concernced about GOP electability so...

[Winston]

If the choice is between Rand Paul going down to a Goldwater-esque defeat or a narrow defeat for Christie then that doesn't say much good now does it?

[Bill Dalasio]

In the short run, yes. But, just remember, most serious studies of conservatism suggest that the conservative successes of the next thirty years had their roots in roots in Goldwater's failed bid. Even a losing Paul bid might do the same.

[DarrenM]

Christie would only be marginally better than Hillary or Biden.

What's hilarious is people proclaiming Christie the 'frontrunner' for the Republican nomination for 2016. I think it's just a tad early for this.

[Mike M.]

Christie is nothing but morbidly obese Romney. He's going to get his enormous fifty pound head handed to him by team Clinton.

[Bryan C]

Politically, maybe. But not in terms of temperament. Christie's confrontational style is very different from Romney's usual stoic professionalism.

It would be a good thing if Christie's success encouraged more libertarians and conservatives to yell back when opponents try to shout them down.

[Bill Dalasio]

Oh, yeah, like all the success they enjoyed running the former governor of Massachusetts.

[Winston]

I have an honest question: How many libertarians are there in elective office in the US? At any level: state, local, county, federal?

[AuH20]

Go back to dping puzzles or busting ghosts, Winston!

[AuH20]

Go back to dping puzzles or busting ghosts, Winston!

[Winston]

I take it you can't think of any?

[AuH20]

Winston, I don't see how you're helping me to deal with my ghost problems, or my many unsolved puzzles.

You haven't joined the EPA, have you? Walter Peck worked for them!

[Winston]

When did you have problems with dickless people? When did you become a socon transphobe?

[Atanarjuat]

DPing puzzles?

[The Immaculate Trouser]

There used to be a handful in AK and some other places in state and local elections during the 90s. None have been election to any national or gubernatorial positions AFAIK.

IMO the LP is a terrible party for anything besides protest vote. Libertarians should just start fresh if they have electoral ambitions; the LP is too badly organized and filled with crap to be a viable vehicle for those ambitions.

[juris imprudent]

The cause is pretty much lost. The two major parties are the More Free Shit party and the Less Free Shit party. America really isn't interested in a No Free Shit party.

[Doctor Whom]

The two major parties are the Free Shit and Social Control (Emphasis on Free Shit) Party and the Free Shit and Social Control (Emphasis on Social Control) Party.

[Bryan C]

Yep. Which is why I'm a proud libertarian, but never a Libertarian. The LP is not a useful tool to me.

[Enyap]

According to the LP wikipedia page it's 145, all of them at the local level.

[Winston]

The largest number is from Pennsylvania. Huh.

Michael Robertson

Licking Township Supervisor, Pennsylvania

Most libertarian title ever?

[Corning]

I don't live in Virginia...

I don't know the candidates.

My understanding is that the state is purple while I live in a blue state and has been 20 years....here i will throw Republicans a bone.

So yeah basically there is nothing the GOP candidate could have done short of being the libertarian candidate that would have kept me from voting for the libertarian....

[Virginian]

Too bad Sarvis is a worthless squish. It's why I didn't vote for him. Look, I'm not trying to write anyone out of the movement but to me if you think we need more taxes or more gun control, you're not a libertarian. Period. He wanted more taxes, he can go fuck himself.

Oh, and this isn't a purple state anymore IMO.

[prolefeed]

Democrat Terry McAuliffe won the Virginia governor's race in a squeaker tonight,
with a margin of victory of just over 2 percent, receiving 47.6 percent to Republican Ken Cuccinelli's 45.42 percent.

The D getting quite a bit less than 50% of the vote sounds mighty purple to me.

Blue state is like Hawaii, where my old boss ran for Congress as an R, and lost every single precinct (except for Niihau, where like a dozen people showed up).

Where Obama won by about a 3-1 margin.

Now that's Blue.

[Virginian]

Scumbag versus Nutjob.

Ralph Northam won the LG's race. VMI grad, veteran, supposedly a moderate. He'll be the next governor. The FedGov imports thousands of new parasites into VA each year. It's completely impossible for the GOP in the long run.

[BakedPenguin]

Sarvis wanted to replace one tax with another.

[Corning]

I live in Washington state.

Yeah...Virginia is not a blue state....and no Virginian has earned the right to claim Blue State status.

Let the single party Dems fuck things up unopposed for 20 years, then come talk to me about blue states

[prolefeed]

Virginia state senate: 20 Rs, 20 Ds.

Purple. As purple as it gets.

Hawaii state senate: 1 (ONE!) R, 24 Ds.

Blue. Very, very Blue.

[DblEagle]

I have the misfortune to have a job in Hawaii and it is not blue. This state has moved beyond Team Blue and is Tm Ultra-Violet. A dem from NYC would be tossed in many parts of the state as a fascist reactionary.

[Virginian]

Well if I was going to be a pedantic douche I'd talk about the Solid South. But I seriously do think VA is going to get bluer and bluer, simply because the FedGov continues to grow and grow and import new voters into the NoVA area who are dependent on big government.

[Winston]

Well if I was going to be a pedantic douche I'd talk about the Solid South.

Heh. In Mississippi, Georgia and South Carolina the Republicans didn't even bother to run a gubernatorial candidate until the 1960s and only occasionally in Louisiana. North Carolina occasionally elected a Republican governor and Virginia and Tennessee gubernatorial candidates didn't do as bad as the ones in Texas, Arkansas, Florida and Alabama.

[XM]

"The D getting quite a bit less than 50% of the vote sounds mighty purple to me."

TM enjoyed nearly a double digit lead around shutdown theatre, but the ACA fiasco and his terrifying investment stories cut into his lead.

KC got screwed by the shutdown. Lots of government workers there supposedly, it had like Zip effect in CA. He would have benefittd from the prolonged fallout from ACA. The election came a bit too soon for him.

[cavalier973]

Would the people of NoVa voted differently had the FedGov not been shut down?

[johnl]

And the failed ACA launch get noticed earlier? Maybe.

[Corning]

So you ask a question from a bunch of libertarians who don't know crap about the candidates. Then you get an answer based on ignorance of those candidates then jump on that answer spelling out all the details about the candidates....

Fun.

Sorry your guy did not win...don't take it out on me.

[Virginian]

My guy? I didn't vote.

[FreeTrader]

WTF? Sarvis never said he wanted to raise taxes. Just as critically, he was the absolute best pro-2nd Amendment candidate, scoring the highest on the state's VDCL survey (all "yes" responses). Cooch got a "so-so" rating after two attempts, abstaining from multiple questions and not supporting Constitutional Carry. Thanks for nothing.

[XM]

Sarvis did way better than I thought. He outperformed Gary Johnson, who didn't really all that well in 2012.

Unfortunately, Chris Christie cleaned house in New Jersey, and that probably got the GOP's undivided attention. If the guy really did get 45% of the Latino vote, that spells trouble for Rand.

Christie IS actually sort of a social moderate. But he's less libertarian on spending or economy, and he trashed libertarians for dominating the party.

Christie may very well become the kind of Republican that wins elections.

[Winston]

Reason's concern trolling over GOP electability might backfire on them? Who would have thunk?

[Virginian]

He's a gun grabbing fuck. He's Rudy Giuliani with more fat and even more annoying Yankee accent. So yeah, he just became the 2016 frontrunner.

Fuck this. I'm starting a Kickstarter to build a wall north of Fredericksburg, and calling for a convention of secession. We're going to make it work this time.

[The Immaculate Trouser]

Make sure to build the wall far west enough to include Tucson. I'd rather not be trapped on the other side of it.

[Root Boy]

Tucson?? Isn't that a peoples republic?

[R C Dean]

You've been here, I see.

[Cytotoxic]

Gun grabbers cannot win in the 2016 GOP nod.

[prolefeed]

Christie may very well be the kind of Republican, like M. Romney, who wins a Blue state as governor and then gets beaten badly in Blue states for prez.

[Winston]

Like Mr. Romney he is the sane Republican before the election while in the general election he is a crazy libertarian.

Also I recall polls showing that Christie will lose in 2016 by a smaller margin than Paul or Cruz. Not sure what they are like now though.

[Capt. Rimmer]

Re: Poll predicting the outcome of 2016.

Is it a national poll or is it conducted state by state?

[DarrenM]

Also I recall polls showing that Christie will lose in 2016 by a smaller margin than Paul or Cruz. Not sure what they are like now though.

I don't know why we bother with elections. Just use the polls. We know sooner who will be president and we don't waste all the time and money are campaigns and actually trying to sell the candidates to the public.

[XM]

He could very well be another Romney, but I'm intrigued by the fact that he's gotten support from groups that tend to vote OVERWHELMINGLY Democrat. He got over 30% of the black vote and over 40% of the Latino vote. (According to Hotair) Did either Romney or Mccain receive that kind of support?

I get that his opponent was a pushover, but his landslide victory is apparently unprecedented in that state. I don't even Arnold whupped Angelides that badly in CA.

I'm hearing that blacks like Christie because he's pro voucher or school choice. But wait, isn't that a libertarian cause? How did he win women's vote, even though he's pro life?

Messaging and image matters, and for Christie just.... found a way. KC didn't. I think Rand and Cruz have a serious challenger to contend with.

[Some call me Tim?]

Cool, I look forward to either voting LP or abstaining in 2016...

[KDN]

Just like every other Pres election.

[Cyto]

That's awfully reminiscent of Bush Jr. He did great with Hispanics in Texas. Lots of support from other minorities too. Then the national election destruction machine got amped up. My ex was black, so we got all of the gin-up-the-black-vote material mailed to our house.

The NAACP sent some really nice, expensive, full page card stock glossy mailers showing chains on the back of a pickup truck, trying to say that Bush was a klansman who would drag black folks behind a truck. We got some sort of mailer of the "republicans are racist" or "Bush hates black people" variety pretty much every other day for about 3 months leading up to the election.

Christie will be a hated bigot by the time the election rolls around. The Democrat demonization machine is pretty effective, and impressively relentless. It is amazing that every republican candidate in my lifetime has been a flaming racist, including people like Bush who was probably the most demonstrably non-racist major party candidate of all time. (which goes to show you don't have to be a racist to screw up the job) You'd think that at some point at least the media would get tired of carrying that water.

[DarrenM]

The NAACP sent some really nice, expensive, full page card stock glossy mailers showing chains on the back of a pickup truck, trying to say that Bush was a klansman who would drag black folks behind a truck.

Classy.

[Bill Dalasio]

Exactly. As a governor, they're fine with him. What he did wasn't all that different from what a non-insane Democrat would HAVE to do. And the NJ Dems knew this one was in the bag for Christie to start with.

But, I can guarantee you, the moment he announces for President, he'll transform into an anarchist libertarian socon who detests women, children, old people and gays. Oh, and he wants teachers to eat catfood. And he always has.

[VG Zaytsev]

Christie may very well be the kind of Republican, like M. Romney, who wins a Blue state as governor and then gets beaten badly in Blue states for prez.

I hate the fat fucking fascist - but he's undeniably a better politician that Romney.

[Calidissident]

For an LP candidate, Johnson did pretty well. He received the most votes of any LP candidate ever, and the second-highest share of the vote (highest since 1980).

[JeremyR]

Just like McCain and Romney?

Yeah, yeah, in retrospect they get painted as Arch-Conservatives, but in reality, they were moderate Republicans the same as Christie

[The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc]

Here's the Washington Post with the Virginia exit poll data

15% of voters aged 18-29 voted for Sarvis.

[The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc]

Also surprising:

47% of voters identified as 'Independent or Something Else' broke for Cuccinelli.

And 7% of those who identify as 'liberal' voted for Sarvis compared to just 3% of 'conservatives'.

[Virginian]

I think that first number is just the usual "I'm a Republican but I don't say so because people yell at me" contingent. You know how libs flip shit about overpolling ever election and blame Diebold conspiracies? I'd say there's a solid chunk of people who would deny voting GOP if you asked, but do it every time.

[XM]

Winning a decent amount of "independent" vote probably isn't enough to overcome 90% of blacks and 70% Latinos voting Dem.

Do minorities and the poor care about limited government? That's really the question here. Christie supposedly got over 30% of the black vote and over 40% of the Latino vote. The libertarian vote mattered not an iota for this guy.

It's obvious why Ron Paul abandoned Sarvis. If (in the GOP primary) Christie can win big blue states and libertarians in purple states support a libertarian candidate, then his son will lose.

If you want Rand Paul to win (and he, unlike Sarvis, has a shot), then you CANNOT vote for a libertarian candidate. That's just fact.

[Calidissident]

How does voting for Sarvis in a VA gubernatorial race mean that you don't want Rand Paul to win the presidency?

[The Immaculate Trouser]

Because Rand Paul will probably be better on fiscal issues but "worse" on social issues (certainly abortion, probably gay marriage as well) than whoever the LP picks -- meaning that we run the risk of having this fight divide libertarians all over again.

[XM]

I meant in the presidential election.

For some reason I thought you could vote for a libertarian candidate in the GOP primary, my mistake.

[dj kumquat]

i'm not sure i buy it. the guy had no proven record, just proven rhetoric.

[Ken Shultz]

"Sarvis pointed out the tax doesn't require GPS tracking?a standard odometer already tracks mileage."

Then use the standard odometer.

[crazyfingers]

Except people would figure out ways to roll back their odometer and there would be massive corruption at the inspection office. Eventually some company would create a tamper-proof electronic record keeping and lobby the politicians for it. They could come up with a whole bunch of BS reasons why it is necessary and easily mandate it for new cars. Slippery freaken slope.

[ChrisO]

Not to mention that Northern Virginians do lots of driving in DC and Maryland, which is not supposed to be taxed under the type of scheme Sarvis supports. There'd be no way to document the amount of driving that was done out of state.

I personally think the gas tax should be sufficient to support road maintenance--it typically gets "diverted" to other uses.

Road projects and maintenance have also become highly corrupt, causing the budgets to balloon even as the quality of the streets and roads takes a nosedive.

[Virginian]

Yeah the gas tax is a perfectly fine proxy. Heavier vehicles inflict more wear on the roads, and use more gas to move thus they pay their fair share in more gas tax.

A lot simpler and less invasive then reading people's mileage. Who was that English governor of Hong Kong who refused to collect statistics on the economy, knowing that if he did so then the meddlers would want to tinker with it?

[johnl]

And electric cars do no wear to the roads?

[crazyfingers]

Exactly. It's all a matter of priorities and reining in costs. That's how a libertarian should address it, not push new taxation schemes. User fees are not libertarian when there are already a million other taxes to cover the costs, and pretending they are will only hurt with the public.

[Ken Shultz]

Want to turn the interstates into toll roads? That's fine with me.

Better yet, sell the interstates off to the highest bidder. Then the tax payers won't have to pay for them anymore.

[crazyfingers]

There's no need to argue those extremes or bring up a new tax. Just point out that the government has plenty of money for essential tasks when it is allocated correctly, and that money can be saved by going after entrenched interests like unions.

Of course Sarvis probably doesn't believe that.

[Ken Shultz]

I don't think those solutions are extreme.

I use toll roads lanes all the time in Southern California. The ones running along the 91 were built by a private company, I understand. When they started making so much money, the government came in and bought the pay lanes back from the developer who built them.

There's no reason why large sections of our interstate system couldn't be sold off to whomever was willing to bid for them.

There's nothing "extreme" about toll roads. They've been in existence for thousands of years.

[Ken Shultz]

"Except people would figure out ways to roll back their odometer and there would be massive corruption at the inspection office."

People self-report their income--and they did it for years.

I'm not here for the government's benefit.

If they can't find a way to tax me without also--accidentally--tracking everything about me, too bad!

Find another way. The tax on oil is fine. Or maybe the federal government should just get out of the highway business. Or maybe they should slash spending somewhere else--and use it for roads. Maybe they should start with laying off about 10,000 of the 40,000 people they got working for the NSA.

I don't care. But the way to tax me where they track me even more than they already are is a non-starter.

My purpose in life is not to provide the government with a convenient way to tax me. They can go fuck themselves.

[Root Boy]

Mike Lee just gave a speech where he proposed getting rid of most of the feds gas tax - revert it to the states. Surprised it hasn't received more press (or maybe not).

Devolution is one area Repubs would get some populist cred, but they are the stupid party, and DC hates to give up the goodies.

[Ken Shultz]

That would make a lot of sense.

I understand that money for roads is one of the ways the federal government imposes its will on the states--on all sorts of issues.

If I remember correctly, when the states started lifting the drinking age to 21, en masse, it was in response to the federal government demanding they do so in order to get that federal transportation money.

I understand that's why DC still had their drinking age at 18 long after everyone else in the country. It's hard to put pressure on a state when there isn't one.

[R C Dean]

If Sarvis really believes a mileage tax doesn't kick the door open for full-time GPS tracking, he's a naif who has no business in politics.

Sure, its possible to do it without a GPS, but the mileage tax is a giant invitation, which will be accepted, to put a black box on every car.

ITS A TRAP.

[ChrisO]

I ended up voting for Cuccinelli. Not because I like him, but because I'm an actual Virginian who will have to pay the actual tax increases that McAuliffe wants. And he's likely to get some of them, since the Republican establishment in Va. doesn't even pretend to be fiscally conservative.

Cuccinelli's so-con fuckwittery had no chance of being implemented, and I don't vote based on symbolism.

[SIV]

Mileage tax? Statist much?
Libertarians are almost as bad as Republicans. Fuck 'em all.

[Root Boy]

Sarvis got bankrolled by some s/w billionaire from Austin -- who also happened to be an Obama bundler.

Doesn't mean he was a stalking horse, but he sure didn't seem like much of a LP person.

[DarrenM]

Doesn't mean he was a stalking horse, but he sure didn't seem like much of a LP person.

He didn't have to be. As long as he had the L after his name, there were those who would mindlessly vote for him regardless of his actual views. (Same with D and R, of course.)

[PapayaSF]

So what was the thread where we picked Sarvis's total? I must have deleted the bookmark. I had 6%, but I think someone else had 7%.

[The Immaculate Trouser]

I am surprised -- I thought Sarvis would get 3% -- 4%, tops. Cuccinelli also exceeded my expectations.

Not a great night for conservatives and libertarians, but it could have been worse.

[JeremyR]

How? It means the only thing stopping Hillary from winning in 2016 is losing the primary to Elizabeth Warren...

[The Immaculate Trouser]

Cuccinelli lost because he ran an incredibly passive campaign and said some insanely stupid shit about criminalizing sodomy.

In any purple state, that's a death sentence. Here, it resulted in a minor loss.

Solution: don't say stupid shit about criminalizing sodomy, and don't run a passive campaign.

People are reading too much into this election, methinks. Conservatives and libertarians are going to need to get along better and put aside cultural issues if they want to be competitive in more markets, that much is true -- but TBH, this result was not punishing and should not be used as proof for much of anything besides the merits of running bad campaigns and saying stupid things about sodomy.

[Winston]

People are reading too much into this election, methinks

Well I suppose this is preferable to the endless bleating that this "proves" that Chris Christie is some sort of Sane Republican (at least until the primaries end) and to Reason trying to say that Virginia is proof that the GOP needs to go libertarian while Christie is not proof of the opposite.

[Bill Dalasio]

I don't think it's proof the GOP needs to "go libertarian". But, I think it's pretty solid proof they need to make sure they don't completely alienate libertarian leaning voters.

[Ken Shultz]

"Reason trying to say that Virginia is proof that the GOP needs to go libertarian while Christie is not proof of the opposite."

Libertarians are swing voters; we just don't swing between Republicans and Democrats. We swing between voting Republican, on one hand, or voting LP or not voting at all on the other.

Look at the margin of victory. Look at the percentage of libertarians who voted for the libertarian candidate. If the Republicans had captured all those libertarian swing voters, what would have happened?

I don't care what's happening in a deep blue state like New Jersey. What about the swing states? In Virginia it was close--those are the states where Republican fortunes are decided nationally. Want to do well in the presidential election? It doesn't matter what the GOP does for New Jersey's electoral votes--Christie might win just New Jersey, but the rest of the blue states are going Democrat no matter who you run.

Who the next president is will be decided in swing states like Virginia, and if the Republicans want to win the presidency, then they need to appeal to swing voters--like libertarians.

Same thing if we want to take the Senate. New York and California don't matter. If you want control of the Senate, you need to battle in swing states--and all those libertarian voters are just sitting there. ...and we seem to make up more than the margin they need victory.

[Corning]

Not agreeing that Hilary is a shoe in but...

How was a Republican Governor of Virginia going to stop Hilary again?

[Ken Shultz]

I think Jeremy was being facetious.

[neoteny]

Sarvis pulled 6.6 percent, or more than 142,000 votes, five times the vote total Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson won last November [...] Kaplan won .6 percent of the vote, the same as Gary Johnson last year

This doesn't compute. If GJ won .6 percent of the vote last year, then Sarvis pulled 11 times the vote GJ got last year.

Actually, GJ pulled .99% of the vote last year, which means that Sarvis got 6.6 times what GJ did, and GJ got roughly 1.5 times the vote Kaplan got.

[Ed]

Lower turnout means the raw total is not as many times as large as the percentage

[neoteny]

In the 2012 United States presidential election, Johnson received 1% of the popular vote, amounting to more than 1.2 million votes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Johnson

Only the percentages are comparable.

[nipplemancer]

silly fags and your electoral politics. so much butthurt.

Corpulent Jesus won to no one's surprise. The Cooch lost to no one's surprise. Yet here we have a bunch of team red motherfuckers trying to guilt libertarians into voting for their next guy. Hahahaha.

[SugarFree]

Seriously. They demand you vote Republican if they can argue the R candidate is even in the tiniest bit libertarian, but dump the Libertarian candidate because of a disagreement over a single tax administration issue.

I'll be glad to see a Republican in the White House for a single reason: the possibility the fucking Republican LINOs will pack up their butthurt and get the fuck off this board.

[General Butt Naked]

I think that "butthurt" is seriously overused, but it's just sooo perfect for the republicans that lose and blame libertarians. Really, if I had to imagine what a person with an intensely painful butt would act like, it would be John and Tulpa (among others) in last night's thread.

I don't understand why I'm supposed to give up things I believe in, hold my nose, and vote republican for some promise of lower spending, but they're not.

[FreeTrader]

Agreed. Lot of Republicans here whining and slinging about the Republican (Blaze and National Review) propaganda. They apparently know little about Sarvis but a lot about what the Repubs were saying.

[Steve G]

It would be "insane" to vote for Sarvis....for this one minor issue

Nice work Ron. Now who's the spoiler

[BLEEDINELL]

Campaigns/Elections
Virginia

"Libertarian Robert Sarvis Pulls 6.6 Percent in Virginia Governor's Race, Almost Five Times Better Than Gary Johnson Last November"

....and succeeds in helping Marxist McCauliffe to win the governorship. Thanks a fuckin pantload.

[Brian D]

If every one of those Sarvis voters had stayed home, it would have turned out different? Or did their votes belong to Cuccinelli and Sarvis stole them?

[Bill Dalasio]

Except the Cooch did everything he could to alienate them. Is your argument that libertarians ought to STFU and STFD and just pull the lever mindlessly for Team Red?

[R C Dean]

Since you are the property of the State, your vote is the property of the Party. You are free to cast it for either of the PARTY BE RULED candidates, but giving it to someone else is theft from the State and its Party.

I think that's the mindset underlying the "wasted vote" thing.

[BLEEDINELL]

Is your argument that libertarians ought to STFU and STFD and just pull the lever mindlessly for Team Red?

Not at all. Just look where the money comes from before you vote. Sarvis had a Dem bigwig donate truckloads.

http://freebeacon.com/obama-bu.....candidate/

If you want Libertarian values to succeed, you need to understand how the filthy game of politics is played and play it.
In my opinion, voting against Marxists trumps voting for Libertarians. We still live in a two party world, and need to change the people before we can change the politics.
I'm not giving up on Libertarian values, but to wallow in stubborn posturing does nothing but give the Marxists more power.

[Bill Dalasio]

"In my opinion, voting against Marxists trumps voting for Libertarians."

And what becomes the non-Marxist party's incentive to stop alienating libertarians, to respect those values?

[DarrenM]

And what becomes the non-Marxist party's incentive to stop alienating libertarians, to respect those values?

You mean the incentive to tuck you in at night and make you feel better as opposed to actually winning anything.

[wwhorton]

Wow, your idiotic condescension has totally convinced me to abandon my own interests in order to vote for whichever statist, hypocritical, Bible-thumping shitheel of a candidate your team puts up at the next possible opportunity!

[wareagle]

funny how Repubs never ask what they can do to court the libertarian vote or, at the least, not alienate it. Team Red takes it as an article of faith that it should always get libertarian support. Kinda like the Dems are pissed at Ralph Nader over 2000.

[JidaKida]

OK so roll that beautiful bean footage.

http://www.PrivacyRoad.tk

[Swiss Servator, WWII gold...?]

Thank you VA! Now people can laugh at your state's governor and lay off Illinois once in a while...

[Jaybirdmojo]

Let the Libertarians spoil every election until one of the two parties realize that they could, seriously, start winning if they had those votes... or, hell, couldn't hurt to *TRY* to get them.

[Atanarjuat]

Yep. The fact that Democrats were funding the Libertarian was a good sign. Next, we need Republicans to fund a Libertarian who promises to siphon Democrat votes in a socially liberal state.

[Fluffy]

Guys, this mileage tax argument is silly.

Strictly speaking, if I ran for President on a platform of getting rid of all government taxes and funding the state using the transactions stamp tax Rand proposed, some asswipe could point and say, "FLUFFY IS PROPOSING NEW TAXES OMG!!! ELEVEN!!!!"

And you could ALSO say, "OMG Fluffy your transactions tax could be used to track citizens' economic activity! OMG!!! ELEVEN!!!!"

Yeah, you got me. An entirely user-fee funded government would have really good data on the stuff citizens did that triggered the fee. Well, I guess we gotta stick with the income tax then.

[wareagle]

serious question - how is the gas tax and other associated vehicle taxes and fees NOT the same as a user fee system?

The more I drive, the more gas I buy, ergo the more gasoline tax I pay. The govt believing it has a right to know my mileage seems far more anti-liberty than a tax that ostensibly goes to fund transportation projects.

[Neoliberal Kochtopus]

There are other uses for gasoline other than use on public roads.

[SugarFree]

There are other uses for gasoline other than use on public roads.

What if they use that gasoline to drive to cocKtail partiez?!?!?!?!?

[Neoliberal Kochtopus]

Well then *handwave* they murst lurve democrats!

[wareagle]

which doesn't answer the question. How is the state knowing someone's mileage a pro-liberty stance?

[Fluffy]

User fees are inherently a more liberty-friendly way of funding the government than income taxes or head taxes - because you can in theory avoid them or control / limit your exposure to them.

[Ken Shultz]

"There are other uses for gasoline other than use on public roads."

So what?!

You think they're gonna use the tax revenue they generate just for roads exclusively?

AH! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!

[Fluffy]

In theory you could charge different per-mile rates for different types of vehicles, to more accurately reflect their strain on the roads.

Personally, I think the gas tax is fine.

All I'm saying is that when somebody walks up with a whole page of taxes they want to get rid of, and they say, "And one way we'll make this work is to tax mileage," you can't really say that's not a libertarian argument.

Head taxes and income taxes are unlibertarian. Getting rid of pr reducing those types of taxes in favor of use taxes is libertarian.

It's not the policy I would favor or the route I would take, but it's not heretical.

[Ken Shultz]

If they can't do it without using some means to track us without a warrant, then they'll have to find some other way.

Personally, I find sales taxes (on things like oil and gasoline) remarkably libertarian--because it's one of the few types of taxation that is paid, more of less, voluntarily.

I choose to pay the tax when I look at the price of gasoline and decide to buy it at that price. If I don't want to pay the tax on gasoline, I can choose not to.

Is there another form of taxation more voluntary than that?

It's also good from economic efficiency standpoint that we subjected tax levels to market forces, that way. The government has a vested interest in not taxing things (like gasoline) too high because it impacts demand. They can price things right out of the market.

Is there another form of taxation that respond to market forces so seamlessly?

Give me sales taxes of give me...

Well, not death. That's kind of harsh. Give me sales taxes or I'll whine and moan about it. How's that?

[R C Dean]

Its not the tax per se that pisses me off, its the naivete of believing its not a package deal with GPS tracking, either now or in the near future.

[Rufus J. Firefly]

I don't get something. If there's such outrage for Obamacare and the Cuccinelli was one of those against it, why didn't the voters send a message by voting him in?

Also, will it be lost on proggies that Jarvis is in an inter-racial marriage? His family looks quite genuine. It's a "feel" you get.

Unlike some other guy whose name starts with an 'O' and ends in a "liar."

[Scruffy Nerfherder]

why didn't the voters send a message by voting him in?

Northern Virginia

[Pompey]

His family looks quite genuine. It's a "feel" you get

This. And that's Sarvis.

[Rufus J. Firefly]

Sorry. I meant that. Jarvis is the street I just booked my hotel in Toronto. Cross-wired.

[Thomas O.]

Sucks that he couldn't make it to 10 percent, but at least 6.6 WAS an impressive showing.

Time to wake up and smell the coffee, GOP. Same old shit won't work anymore, and the libertarians just pissed in your victory punch.

[Reggie1971]

You pulled in a whopping 6.6 percent of the vote, notwithstanding the fact that you helped put a Clinton flack in office. Yeah, great victory for libertarianism.

[Bill Dalasio]

No, Reggie, the GOP pushed away 6.6% of the vote. They're the ones who "helped put a Clinton flack in office". If they want to prevent this sort of outcome, they ought to avoid its cause.

[DarrenM]

No, Reggie, the GOP pushed away 6.6% of the vote.

And the LP pushed away 47% of the vote.

[John Galt]

Mileage tax: big thumbs down. IMHO

[Citizen Nothing]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Fuck the GOP. (And the Dems, too, as long as we're fucking.)

[ReasonableS]

I find this to be a poor attitude. We should judge the candidates by their merit not just by their party affiliations. The more we reward dedication to the citizens instead of to the party the more diverse candidates we will have and the more likely we won't have to compromise on the person we vote to represent us.

[igotnuthin]

Why is he considered a Libertarian? Why is Abortion and Gay Marriage "worth" so much? The bulk of what the government is doing has nothing to do with abortion or gay marriage...it has to do with government power. This Sarvis clown wants bigger government for everyone with enviro-taxes and gps' in every car? What the hell is going on here?

[ReasonableS]

From what I heard many people who voted in Virginia were voting against a candidate instead of for which makes me wonder why Sarvis didn't do better. If there was any time to give a Libertarian candidate a chance to show what he could do in government, this years Virginia Gubernatorial race was it.

Cuccinelli was the worst of the candidates due to his corruption and his willingness to impose his social views on Virginia citizens. McAuliffe was next to the worst with his status quous corruption. If neither of the two major party candidates are acceptable why not try an unknown? I am guessing one factor was all that money McAuliffe had at his disposal for television ads. That and Libertarians are still too much of an unknown and most voters are risk adverse.

[Reggie1971]

"Libertarian Robert Sarvis Pulls 6.6 Percent in Virginia Governor's Race, Almost Five Times Better Than Gary Johnson Last November"

This is a headline that would make The Onion proud.

SMH

[Jerome]

How sad that anyone thinks this liberal plant is a libertarian. Dupes.

[ReasonableS]

I don't know much about him, but on paper he seems to lean Libertarian.

http://www.robertsarvis.com/issues

His stand on environmental harm seems to be the most questionable thing, but that could go along with the Libertarian notion that everything is okay as long as you don't harm your fellow citizen.

Do you have specifics that makes you question his classification as a Libertarian?

[Locris]

I would interested to see where the Libertarian candidates involvement resulted n the defeat of a big government democrat.

[Guimo]

Is it true he was financed by liberals & by an associate of Karl Rove?

[mythenjoseph]

I did not even read the article. What is positive about this man FUNDED and assisted by Cantors aide grabbing 6.6% ? NOW this progressive (marxist/liberal) is going to tax and bloat the local government even more!!!!I posted on this site before the election that all this fool was going to do was get McCauliffe in....same as massachusetts governors race that kept the ass Patrick in office. Do you realize now corruption/ cronyism/ nepotism will be even more rampant and of course for our own good. You libertarians are nothing but a drain on conservatism EVER getting a foot...disgusted you short sighted fool's.

[Dibbler]

The fact that the GOP and its constitutions think they are entitled to these votes is more indicative of the reason they are losing ground, in my opinion. Take a look in the mirror and question why you didn't get libertarian votes before you point fingers. The libertarian segment is tired of being swindled by the "lesser of two evils."

[Dibbler]

Constituents*

Freudian slip on my part, perhaps.

[DarrenM]

Better to be a Democratic tool than to taken for granted by Republicans.

[jimmyvvh479]

My last pay check was 9500 dolr working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can't believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
This is what I do---------- http://www.jobs53.com

[Federale]

Congrats, Libertarians elected an anti-gun, pro-tax increase and pro-welfare increase candidate. And what is libertarian about that? Stupid is as stupid does. Or that is what marijuana on the brain does.

[wwhorton]

It's not the job of Libertarians to elect Republicans. Carry your own water, statist.

[FreeTrader]

^ +1

[tlapp]

I am glad to see Libertarians get a higher % of the vote. It is enough to sway elections which means it is enough to have the Libertarian view enter the debate on important issues.
One warning, as much as I dislike compromise we will not get the perfect candidate. I didn't like Cuccinelli's stand on social issues but Sarvis had some very non libertarian positions on taxation.
At some point if you get 70%, 80% or 90% on most issues it may be worth taking it. We will never find individuals 100% lockstep in agreement, as Libertarians we should understand that better than anyone.

[Anders]

Has anyone picked up on the fact that this so-called Libertarian had decidedly un-Libertarian policy ideas and was largely funded by an Obot bundler from Texas?

All you tools who voted for him should have woken up and voted your conscience - Democrat.

[Aluhaii]

Sarvis is no Libertarian.

[kiyakaka]

my neighbor's step-mother makes $81 every hour on the internet. She has been out of work for 5 months but last month her income was $15044 just working on the internet for a few hours. hop over to here.......
==========================
http://www.works23.com
==========================