S
SuperLuigi
Guest
No question KC would’ve have won this without Sarvis.
- Status
E
estesbob
Guest
It is hard for Catholics to pull away from the Democrat party-I know it was for me. Lets face it-50 years ago it was the party of the little guy and was closely aligned with the Church on most issues. But those days are long gone but many refuse to admit it.I hear ya.It is saddening and puzzling,especially considering McCaulliffe is a Catholic and that so many who are Catholic are gleeful that he prevailed.
M
MJE
Guest
When I read about the Texas billionaire and Obama $ bundler who underwrote the non-libertarian Libertarian candidate I wonder if the press would have *revealed *such a tactic if the billionaire and $bundler was helping GOP and spelled his name KOCH
J
Just_Lurking
Guest
The Lt. Governor race, which did not have a third party candidate, split 55% Democratic to 45% Republican. The Governer’s race split 48% Democratic, 45% Republican, 7% Independent.
The obvious conclusion is that the Independent candidate stole 7% of the votes from the Democratic candidate.
The obvious conclusion is that the Independent candidate stole 7% of the votes from the Democratic candidate.
S
SuperLuigi
Guest
No doubt.
They love to link the Koch Brothers to Walker, but fail to mention that Wisconsin unions have millions of dollars of retirement funds invested in Koch subsidiaries.
The left has mastered the art of third-party candidates. Reid put fake TEA PARTY candidates on the ballot in Nevada. The GOP responded with their own candidates to split off voters. It didn’t work well for either side, but the telling nature here is the **GOP is too reactionary. **
If the GOP had their act together, they would have taken the lead on this and pushed to have Rosanne Barr on top of the Green Party ticket in 2012, get Colbert/Stewart into the presidential race and run Occupy Wall Street Candidates.
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
S
SuperLuigi
Guest
Then why did a big rich Obama supporter from Texas back Sarvis? To take votes away from Terry to help KC win?
Just because a state has some or all of its gubernatorial cabinet on the ballot doesn’t mean that the voters will march in sync.
P
PaulinVA
Guest
The other thing to look at is that between 30K to 40K people didn’t even vote for AG and LT Gov.
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
H
HappyCatholic01
Guest
Interesting that for those who believed abortion was the number one issue, McAuliffe was +25, which furthers dispels the notion that abortion isn’t a driving force when voting. The candidate who supports abortion rights to the core won by +25%, which essentially means the passion for the issue was actually on the left, despite media claims to the contrary. I have always said there are segments of the population that will vote for a person regardless of his policies, beliefs, or character if his opponent is opposed to abortion rights. For that group, nothing else matters so much. For all the talk on here of Catholics being too focused in a single issue, it appears liberals are eve more focused on that singular issue. Threaten to take away a woman’s “right to choose” and you will be crucified by the left. It truly is the sacred cow for many people, much to God’s dismay.
J
Just_Lurking
Guest
That amounts to only 1.7% of the vote.
P
PaulinVA
Guest
Just Lurking:
Posted from Catholic.com App for Android
It doesn’t account for the 140000 Sardis got, but adds to the mix.
Posted from Catholic.com App for Android
J
Jeanne_S
Guest
I couldn’t agree more.My Grandpa who was in politics on the local level,mayor,city assessor,changed party affiliations when LBJ took office.Wasn’t it Reagan who said"I didn’t leave the Democratic Party,it left me"?
J
Just_Lurking
Guest
So you are suggesting that if there hadn’t been a third party candidate for Governor, then the Governor’s race would have been 52% Republican to 48% Democratic vs. the Lt. Governor’s race of 55% Democratic to 45% Republican, that is, with 7% of voters choosing a split ticket?
Then why did a big rich Obama supporter from Texas back Sarvis? To take votes away from Terry to help KC win?
Just because a state has some or all of its gubernatorial cabinet on the ballot doesn’t mean that the voters will march in sync.
For comparison, in Virginia in 2009, there were no third party candidates, and the split was 59% Republican to 41% Democratic for Governor, and 57% Republican to 43% Democratic for Lt. Governor.
S
SuperLuigi
Guest
KC would have won most of Sarvis’s vote. The media will say otherwise but they also said in 2010 Delaware that Castle would have lost, but polling showed him with a double-digit lead.
So no, I don’t buy that Sarvis “drew evenly”. That’s nonsense. And again, Sarvis was backed a key Obama fundraiser.
In 1980, if there had not been a third party candidate (Anderson) in the presidential race, Carter would’ve gotten most of his vote.
In 1992 if Perot had not run, Bush would have won with ease.
These third party candidates do not “evenly split”. That’s just comfort language for the losing party.
So what? The state races that have the governors cabinet are not always similar.
Take Minnesota, for instance. While Tim Pawlenty (R) was governor, he had a democrat attorney general who he asked to file suit against the health care law. Instead, she filed a friend of the court brief. He also had Mark Ritchie, who was thought to have been lax if not complicit with voter fraud in the state.
Your logic is entirely off base and ridiculous.
J
Just_Lurking
Guest
I’m just looking at the actual numbers. I personally think the idea that “a vote for X is really a vote for Y” is entirely illogical and ridiculous. As a factual matter, it is completely contrary to how votes are actually counted.
P
Personanongrata
Guest
Mr. Cuccinelli was so offensive on so many levels. I am happy that the women of VA don’t have to worry about him anymore.
I
ishii
Guest
Unfortunately the unborn babies will continue to worry about getting vaccumed out of the womb. But I guess that’s not a concern, is it.
J
Jeanne_S
Guest
My thoughts exactly!
- Status