15 votes

Fake Libertarian candidate spoils Virginia governors race

Fake Libertarian candidate spoils Virginia governors race

In a race that was closer than expected, Republican Virginia governor candidate Ken Cuccinelli (who was endorsed by Ron Paul) was defeated by socialist Democrat Terry McAuliffe by one point after fake Libertarian candidate Robert Sarvis managed to garner around 7% of the overall vote.


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

In general, I'm finding that although the party was started by

free-market REPUBLICANS who saw they had no home in the GOP, it appears just as with the general electorate, the liberals are the loudest to claim "original ground."

The liberals are the ones who don't find a home in the DNC who demand all libertarians support abortion and gay marriage.

Frankly, state sanctioned or controlled marriage is as unlibertarian as one can get - straight or gay, it matters not.

And the abortion issue is simply being dredged back up to divide and silence. Bringing it up has no other purpose. And no, it isn't a "fundamental ownership issue" because there are OTHER more secure and I would contend, more accurate foundations for a concept of natural and inalienable rights than self-ownership. And at least one of those alternate foundations show why abortion is NOT a right and explains what is seemingly a conundrum to so many.

But try to even start talking about it and the liberal frothing at the mouth commences in earnest.

Starting a third party was a losing strategy for libertarians

It's time to just admit it. Forming a new libertarian wing of the republican party is a way more viable strategy. The Libertarian Party literally spells death for libertarian ideas actually being realized in the real world.

That wing already existed and still does.

It hasn't accomplished anything - which is why they split some of it off.

A new party wasn't a losing strategy, not actually building the party was. Up until recently, they effectively have been simply a shell. You can't win without local organization and they had none.

That is starting to change, and success will follow.

Good comment. +1

Good comment. +1

Wow. You sound like a bigger

Wow. You sound like a bigger idiot than even I imagined and "I can imagine quite a lot."*

Back to the block list with you neo-con fascist.

*Han Solo

Really? How am I a neocon

Really? How am I a neocon fascist?

I voted for Sarvis... here's why...

I'm a long time libertarian who has voted third party consistently for the last 25 years. I voted for Dr. Paul in the Republican primaries twice, but he is the only republican I have supported. There was absolutely no way in hell that I would have voted for Ken Cuccinelli. I am not a social conservative in the slightest. What I see is an authoritarian corporatist making libertarian noises to libertarians, and making overtures to the religious fascists at the same time. His careful waffling on marijuana legalization made that clear. No thanks.

I was never in love with Robert Sarvis as a candidate, but I'd rather not stay home on election day. If there were only two options, then I'd have written someone in, like I did with the Lt. Gov and AG jobs.

In short, the republican party doesn't own my vote just because Ron Paul chose to be a part of it. Each candidate must earn my vote. "Cooch" (an ironic name if there ever was one) failed to do that. Give me a chance to vote against the fundamentalists AND the socialists, and I'll take it every time.

It was precisely a plethora of candidates in a long train doing

exactly that - giving lip service - that prompted the forming of the LP in the first place.

It seems even Dr. Paul doesn't understand that.

thank you

for standing up for your principles

“The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants.” — Albert Camus

So because he/she 'stood up for their principles'

They have a much bigger and worse government in that state now. That's the reality of it. I get that self-righteousness feels good but that's still the reality.

It wasn't even a vote based

It wasn't even a vote based on principles. According to her/his post, it was a lesser of 3 evils.

What principles?

What principles? According to her/his post, he/she voted for the lesser of 3 evils? While effectively giving the election to Obama Jr.


A vote for Sarvis was a vote for Sarvis.

A vote for Cuccinelli was a vote for Cuccinelli.

A vote for McAuliffe, was a vote for McAuliffe.

Please stop this asinine illogic of claiming a vote for candidate C is really a vote for candidate A or B (pick either) so therefore a vote for candidate C is wasted and bad.

To prove how illogical this idea is, consider that I used letters instead of names. Interchange any actual candidate to be represented by any letter, it doesn't matter.

Then consider that what you are really saying is that the only way for your vote to count, and not be a "bad" vote, is to vote for someone who "can win."

But if say candidate B can't win without the voters who support candidate C from dumping C and voting for B, then B really can't win can he/she?

Thus a vote for Candidate B is a wasted vote - that candidate CAN NOT win UNLESS the people who support C switch over. So voting for Candidate B is a losing proposition - a bad vote, and really - handing the election to candidate A - still.

Thus a vote for candidate B is a vote for candidate A as well.



Candidates A and B are interchangeable based on who you are talking to - even in the same election.

Thus, A is just as likely not to be able to win, unless they can convince anyone voting for candidate C that their vote is wasted unless given to A, because only "A or B" can win and of course, "B" is the bad guy who we have to "prevent from winning." (or vice versa depending on who you are talking to)

This means A really can't win either on their own.

So a vote for A is a wasted vote unless the supporters of C vote for A as well.

Since this won't happen, candidate A can't win, a vote for them is really a vote for candidate B because the election will be thrown to B because there aren't enough voters for A alone without duping those from C also in order to defeat B.

So by your asinine illogic:

A vote for Candidate C is a vote for "bad guy" A or B (interchangeable)


A vote for Candidate B is a really a vote for Candidate A (bad guy)


A vote for Candidate A is really a vote for Candidate B (bad guy)

Thus, a vote for a candidate is NEVER a vote FOR that candidate.


That unless you voted for the winner, you voted for a loser, which effectively means you really wasted your vote and effectively threw the election and your vote to the winner (the bad guy).

How absurdly stupid.

It is THIS above illogic and absurdity that got us to this point.

Stop it.

Just stop.

My point was that she did not

My point was that she did not vote based on principle...it was the better of 3 evils. He/she would be better off staying home. I could respect a no vote better then a lesser of evil vote.

Yes. Congratulations you won

Yes. Congratulations you won a Obama Jr. Way to stick it to em.


You aided a Socialist to be the Governor of Virginia, shameful.

va gop history clearly shows

va gop history clearly shows you are WRONG. the democrats best friend is the gop REPUBLICAN in va.

Ron Paul 2016

As a registered Libertarian....

this whole Sarvis saga was an embarrassment. Between this and Gary Johnson, the LP is nowhere near being a legitimate party. All they do is compromise their principles and apparently whore themselves out to Obama donors in order to get on the ballot and try to get handout money. It's a joke. If they don't clean up their act, I'm seriously going to leave the party.

I don't play, I commission the league.

Best statement I've read on

Best statement I've read on this thread.

What did Ron Paul say about Gary Johnson at the RNC?

"I think he's wonderful and I think he's doing a good job and people should look at him" - Ron Paul

Not really surprising since Ron Paul had Gary Johnson speak at his Rally for the Republic in 2008.

I concur with you on this point.

Gary Johnson was a solid candidate with maybe a few areas where he wasn't quite pure such as his foreign policy. Funny thing is, people made excuses for Johnson not being consistently non-interventionist yet yammer on like crazy about how terrible Rand Paul is for a few individual votes on sanctions.

Johnson let me down by running for president when she should have for Senate in New Mexico as a Republican. He would have had the same core values and would most likely have been elected and could have helped stave off the current economic disaster.

“My attitude toward progress has passed from antagonism to boredom. I have long ceased to argue with people who prefer Thursday to Wednesday because it is Thursday.” - G.K. Chesterton

Yes. And those of you who


And those of you who call me a neocon fascist can bite me cause I voted for Gary Johnson in 2012 because Ron Paul as a write in was not a choice. Even though Gary Johnson didn't align with what I believe on certain issues. Take that liberaltarians.

yeah, the LP has had this problem

ever since the pragmatists beat out the radicals. The last good candidate they fielded was Harry Browne. Although it looks like Gary Johnson is getting more radical. He still has a long way to go, but he is moving in the right direction. May be he finally read Rothbard.

“The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants.” — Albert Camus

Let me get this right.

The fake Libertarian who pushed gay marriage, abortion rights and tax-a-mile driving stole more votes from the bible thumping GOP candidate? WTF

"stole?" Really? You're going to play that card? You better be

ready to prove those votes "were owned" by Cuccinelli in the first place.

And before you make an attempt, don't bother, because such is an impossible feat.

The votes don't exist until they are cast. The only votes that belong to any candidates are the votes they actually receive.

Thus Sarvis didn't steal anything.

Any claim to the contrary is clearly moronic.

People here who (I assume) voted for Ron Paul...

...voted for Sarvis. So...yes.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."


Ron Paul's liberty principles hold more importance than his endorsment?


Since his liberty principles and his endorsement were in alignment in Cuccinelli.

My point is that absent Sarvis those Paulites who voted for Sarvis would have voted for Paul-endorsed Cuccinelli.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

Which one

Which fake libertarian are you talking about? There were two of them

Good point.

I was talking about the one who wasn't thumping the bible and talking about removing our liberties while courting liberty votes.