7 votes

Why Ken Cuccinelli Deserved to Lose

I spent the last two weeks handing out literature door to door in Arlington, Virginia and the last few days going to events in southern, central, southwest and far west Virginia for the Sarvis for Governor campaign. I've been to Bedford, Chesterfield, Chesapeake, Charlottesville, Fredericksburg, Annandale, Norfolk, Hampton Roads, Harrisonburg, Reston, Winchester and Roanoke.

I've met a lot of Ron Paul supporters who supported Robert Sarvis, who was polling at 8-13%. The polls were all very inconsistent, some showing the Democrat, Terry McAuliffe, at 51%, some at 45%, and the Republican, Ken Cucinelli, anywhere from 39% to 44%. Cuccinelli closed the gap toward the end, when his handlers finally let him take his balls out of the box, awakened by the public outcry against Obamacare as it was implemented. MSNBC's Chuck Todd said given another week of campaigning against Obamacare failure, Cuccinelli might have won; but it is also true that if he had started being aggressive a week or two earlier he might have as well. Rather than own up to this GOP failure, the consultants and the talk radio spinners are blaming the Libertarian.

Libertarian Robert Sarvis got the biggest chunk of his vote, over 40%, from people who said they would otherwise not vote, probably not unlike the kind of vote Ron Paul turned out for primaries and caucuses. This is important to note since in reply to this discussion, Norman Singleton, a longtime staff economist in Ron Paul's Congressional office and a current staffer at Campaign for Liberty, insisted that it is "conventional wisdom" that Libertarians take Republican votes. Warning Bell #1 - a Paul functionary approvingly quoting "conventional wisdom." In one poll, one third of Sarvis voters had Cuccinelli as a second choice and a fifth had McAuliffe as a second choice.

In the last two weeks, a somewhat desperate Cucinelli campaign attacked Sarvis, usually with weird and irrelevant picayune issues: that one of his unpaid staff tweeted a response to a Ron Paul organizer pointing out that she was a devotee of a recherché Beckian conspiracy hypothesis; another Ron Paul organizer posted 6 seconds, not even a full sentence, from a wonky Sarvis answer, onto YouTube, making it seem that Sarvis favors a new tax (Robert Sarvis has three policy papers on the Mercatus Center website calling for less spending and less regulation); others charge that Sarvis is not really a libertarian because he said he studied all schools of economic thought, not just Paul approved Austrian economics; or just the general cry that Sarvis is a spoiler causing McAuliffe to win. On this last point the Cucinelli Paulistas were so desperate to get another 2% for Ken from the Sarvis vote that they ignore the evidence that if Sarvis weren't there some of his voters would also increase McAuliffe's total. In the end, the Libertarian spent less per vote than Cuccinelli did since all spending for Sarvis was $380000 and Ken spent $15 million. He spent almost 45 times what they did. But he got less than 7 times their vote. And he didn't have to first spend his money to collect 18,000 signatures to get on the ballot.

So apparently Republican candidates aren't cost effective.

On the last day of the campaign Glenn Beck's website The Blaze reports that an Obama supporting high tech donor gave money to a PAC that gave to the Sarvis ballot drive, and every conservative chattering monkey from Hannity and Chris Plante on down has called this a dirty trick and said Sarvis is created by the Democrats to hurt the GOP. Even though the Virginia Libertarian Party always gets on the ballot, including for gubernatorial races, with or without a donation from a Democrat. And even though the biggest independent expenditure for Sarvis was from the all libertarian Purple PAC, $300,000 for radio and TV ads in the last two weeks of the campaign (and overlooking that Sarvis gave his own campaign twice as much as this Obama affiliated donor). As one Paul organizer said of why she is supporting Cuccinelli, "personnel is policy." She's right. Ken Cuccinelli deserves to lose; the GOP infrastructure supporting him is shot through and through with liars and smear merchants. Note well by the way all the conservative media outlets, The Blaze, Breitbart, and DC's WMAL that spread last minute questions for and charges against Sarvis never interviewed him earlier or had him on their air. And their friends kept him out of the debates where these issues might have been aired. Should such a Nixonian GOP be rewarded with victories?

As to Rand and Ron Paul, it's funny that Paulistas assume that they know how voters will vote, and how they will vote given their changing expectations about the outcome. Their own Austrian economics says they don't and that their attacks on Sarvis represent, as their hero FA Hayek entitled two of his books, "a fatal conceit," and "a pretense of knowledge." Surely some voters change their vote, giving it to or taking it from an independent candidate, depending on who they think is winning. The Paulistas assume that votes are static and a zero sum game, in direct contradiction to their Austrian economics, which would instead suggest that competition and markets are dynamic and a discovery process, where a new "firm" or a new "product" like the Sarvis campaign, actually increases the size of the market and the number of market participants, and where these new entrants as well as everyone else discover what they want to "buy" during the process of the campaign, not before entering it. But the Paul's assume they possess this knowledge, and that they can centrally plan the liberty movement. Norm Singleton has told me that my use of the phrase "central planning" is a smear on the Paul's. But the problems of central planning related to decentralized information are known to apply to large firms in a market economy, which may be so big that their internal operations, no longer run by prices, become dysfunctional. And since Paulistas encouraged us to get behind the GOP, now once again shown to be unpopular, shot through with liars, and a flailing failure (unwilling to really fight, until the very end of their campaign, when it was too late), it looks like this is a case of dysfunction. This hubris led them to waste a lot of time attacking, and even lying about, Sarvis, instead of competing for votes with McAuliffe. Including ironically charges that Sarvis is not sufficiently Austrian (is Ken?) or is too moderate and wonky and doesn't oppose taxes (didn't Ken Cuccinelli's administration and governor just raise taxes?)

Now the Pauls no doubt have good reasons to support Ken Cuccinelli. He quashed a move to change the election rules during the Virginia primaries last year, when only Mitt Romney and Ron Paul did the onerous work to make it onto the Virginia ballot and Newt Gingrich and other slackers asked for special favors to be put on without collecting signatures and doing the work. (That is, all the other Republicans in that primary were kept off the ballot by the same restrictive ballot access laws the Libertarians face every election, which is why Robert Sarvis aimed for 10%, to get the Libertarians permanent ballot status and free them from annual petition gathering, by complying with the Republican co-authored ballot access law which requires them to get 10%.) This "favor" (of obeying the Virginia law) that Cuccinelli did Ron Paul must be repaid. And presumably a Governor Cuccinelli would have been helpful to a 2016 Rand Paul presidential effort.

The Paul's and their groups, like Campaign for Liberty, have decided that they must centrally plan the liberty movement. They know best, and like Obama or some other statist, they want to collectivize our eggs and invest them all in one basket, the GOP. As anyone who knows me knows, I am only supportive of Paulian efforts, from Rand's anti-NSA petitions, to C4L kids protesting Syria, to recruiting candidates like Thomas Massie and Justin Amash. And I would support any William Proxmire or Eugene McCarthy type Democrats who try to liberate Democrats from the Borg that controls them, should these extinct species reappear. And the Paul's and others are free to PERSUADE us that their strategy is the best, or even only, one. But when they start lying and spinning, though it is not coercion, it is akin to the demand of the central planner that they know best and we must invest all in their 5 year plan, even if we think it may fail.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

Such as a "Green" Party or Communist party

candidate. Maybe we should start fighting fire with fire.

"Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern." ~~C.S. Lewis
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15


No it's more fun to whine. And to be manipulated by Glenn Beck and the GOP consultant class who need to blame someone else for their failures.

Bruce Majors, Libertarian for Mayor


ITs like

Hearing an anouncer at a wrastling match. Its all rigged yet he calles it blow by blow with much enthusasim as if it were real.

ITS ALL HOGWASH, the polls are a lie, the media is a lie, the 2 parties are huge lies. The vote count is electronic BS lie.

Then somone explains all the stratigy as if it were real. Get awake and sto promoting theft. This is just another stolen election as every one is now days.

It is a discusting to see somone rooting for a wrastling match that is not real yet they are so excited as if they are in the match winning or loosing. Try telling them that its rigged, see what reception you will have.


We know what happens when one 'assumes'

What kind of assertion is this, "This "favor" (of obeying the Virginia law) that Cuccinelli did Ron Paul must be repaid."?
And then you accuse Ron Paul of lying?
Smearing Ron Paul on the Daily Paul is a new low for this site. I have never disliked the Libertarian Party more after reading this garbage. Go on, keep supporting the democratic party with your losers. You would have all worthy candidates lose by refusing to recognize America's stuck with a 2 party system and the best way for liberty-minded people to have a place at the table is to be a Republican.

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

Oh my! Poor Paulistas got smeared!

Don't we know that they are supposed to get to do all the smearing? I bet one of them will hit me with a GPS device if I don't shut up.

Bruce Majors, Libertarian for Mayor



Does anyone besides Mark Levin use that term? or do you mean Paultard?
Both are nasty terms.

Paulista prima facia is not nasty

As the other term is.

Of course now that Ron Paul is running about repeating lie and flaking for the GOP the word "Paul" may become a term of opprobrium meaning something like "sell out."

Bruce Majors, Libertarian for Mayor


great post

"The Paulistas assume that votes are static and a zero sum game, in direct contradiction to their Austrian economics, which would instead suggest that competition and markets are dynamic and a discovery process, where a new "firm" or a new "product" like the Sarvis campaign, actually increases the size of the market and the number of market participants, and where these new entrants as well as everyone else discover what they want to "buy" during the process of the campaign, not before entering it."

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

SteveMT's picture

I bumped your unbumped post yesterday.

A lot happened after that.

Why did he lose?
Abortion and gay marriage are decoy issues, as are the rest on your list.

They are decoy issues, but they are state issues, not federal.
Sodomy, abortion, and marriage are not federal issues. So they are state issues. I don't believe that they are even state issues (they are individual decisions), unless they are made state issues by the candidates and by the states themselves. Cucinelli made them issues, which was his undoing in addition to garnering no support from the GOP.


The Pauls are trying to "centrally plan the liberty movement" ...is this a joke? And it makes it to the front page? Outrageous. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Sounds like the latest phrase in the PR campaign to justify what happened. Lets face it. The LP was used. Successfully.

An Obama/DNC supporter dropped a 10 grand to get Sarvis on the ballot. Ed Crane spends 300k on last minute Sarvis ads with zero chance of his winning as the Republican Party simultaneously ditches Cuccinelli.

This strikes me as a series of odd coincidences. It sounds to me like a coordinated, bipartisan, exclusively billionaire effort to get the serfs divided and fighting each other.

And save the bit about how Sarvis only drew from Democrats. Again, PR. These exit polls likely involved less than one half of one percent of the people that voted. It's nonsense to pretend you can extrapolate such precise data from 3,500-8k out of 2,221,100 voters.

Then the Koch apparatus, Reason, comes to his aid trying to re-brand their actions - they are one in the same - as having only benevolent intentions.. when it's clear they knew exactly what they were doing.. stopping a Ron Paul endorsed Constitutionalist from winning an incredibly important race.

[Note: I am NOT against allowing the Constitution Party, Green Party, LP ballot access. My point is that it is strategically withheld for THESE kinds of situations. There is a big difference.]

This is it, folks. Big money is seeking to drive a wedge in the "liberty movement." They are exploiting a crack that has been here since the 70's.

Who do you trust? Dr. Ron Paul or Ed Crane, The Koch brothers and Joe Liemandt?

Are you going to let it happen?

Your "Note" sure sounds like central planning

you believe in free competition, except when national security is invoked.

Bruce Majors, Libertarian for Mayor


Koch donations

I believe the Koch brothers donated $70,000 to the Cuccinelli campaign.

Bruce Majors, Libertarian for Mayor



Perhaps, it's measly when you consider their co-conspirators 300k last minute ads.

Big money often tosses greenbacks to both sides. Remember Goldman Sachs were the largest contributors to both Obama and Romney. It's the amounts and timing that matter.

You also have to consider the long history of Ed Crane and the Koch's. So, I don't view that as changing anything.

You are a low information libertarian

Ed Crane and the Koch brothers were just in a multi-year law suit, fighting each other for control of the CATO Institute.

I guess according to you an Obama bundler told them to have this widely publicized fight so we would not know about their plot to years later take down Cuccinelli?

Bruce Majors, Libertarian for Mayor



Because they were struggling against each other for control over the sometimes-kinda-libertarian-while-maintaining-the-status-quo, Cato Institue, it has zero do to with with their individual actions in this particular case.

And you guess wrong. I never said they necessarily collaborated, though it's not beyond the realm of possibility. Sometimes these things are haphazard, last ditch efforts. You can't know.


You lost all credibility when you accused the LP of being supported by big money, when it spent less than $3 a vote and Cuccineli spent over $14 and McAwful over $21.

Bruce Majors, Libertarian for Mayor


you, I like

How this made the front page is beyond me. Your analysis is dead to rights accurate. For what it's worth ive only ever heard the word "paulistas" used by liberals and belway "libertarians" to denigrate the liberty movement. So...

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty."

Click Here To See The Candidates On The Record

Apparently whoever runs DP

Believes in free discussion.

Bruce Majors, Libertarian for Mayor



First of all, i wish MORE democrats/liberals would have donated money to Sarvis/LP. And i wish MORE republicans would have voted for Sarvis to get him >10% instead of voting for Cuccinelli.

However, about exit polls:

#1.) Did the exit polls accurately represent the final election results? Yes, they did
#2.) Has exit poll methodology been proven to provide representative information about the demographics? Yes, they have.

So on what evidence are you disputing them? Because the exit polls did not match your bias?

Summary of Sarvis impact on election

Pre-election Polling (Sarvis voters go 53% for McAulife and 42% for Cuccinelli)

Exit Polling: Sarvis gets most support from independents and 2nd most from liberals

Fox News: " In fact, Sarvis drew from independents and moderates, and took at least as many votes from the Democrat as the Republican."

Exit Poll: McAuliffe lead stays same if Sarvis not in race

CNN Exit Poll: "And if Sarvis had not been in the race, exit polls indicate McAuliffe would have beaten Cuccinelli by 7 points (50%-43%)"


Yeah, I don't care what you wish. You know damn well I've addressed everything you've posted once before. And you lost then, too.

"#2.) Has exit poll methodology been proven to provide representative information about the demographics? Yes, they have."

There is nothing scientific about this. People just use this nonsense to justify their agendas. Such is the case in this conversation. (Outlined in my previous comments below)

Your Washington Post/ABT-SRBI wasn't even a god damned exit poll. It was conducted by telephone.

If you can't accept the fact that polling less than one half of one percent of the people that actually voted can NOT extrapolate to any reasonable degree such conclusions, then you're being dishonest.

But, that's cool, I can copy past from our last run in too.


[Original Comment]
-The first is a Times blog article by Gillespie (paid for by the same people that funded Sarvis, mind you) that links to an ABC article that didn't link the exit poll source. You're left to assume it's contracted out thru Langer Research Associates which doesn't give any sampling data. Either trust them or don't, I guess.

-The WaPo polling says, "This Washington Post/ABT-SRBI poll was conducted by telephone Oct. 24-27, 2013, among a random sample of 1,251 adults in the Commonwealth of Virginia..."

-The NYTimes relies on the aforementioned, Edison Research poll collecting 2,376 voters.

-Fox News relies on aforementioned Edison Research Poll

-I could find zero mention of methodology or sample numbers anywhere on CNN. Though Edison Research lists them as employing their polling services.

-Last link was the CNN article that linked the previous PDF. Again, zero information.

My point here is at least to get you to question the validity of any 'poll' that includes such a tiny margin of the voting population. Especially when they are coming up with such in depth and technical analysis.

So far the very best guess is that they polled 3,627 people.. again out of 2,221,100 people that voted. And then you expect me to believe any technical analysis of such a close race?

I tend not to trust people peddling numbers. Especially when they are this lopsided and coming from people that lie to our faces every second of every day.

And it's not that I'm against a 3rd party. Like I said, I've voted 3rd party. But it can be used in a surreptitious manner by people who have another agenda.

And here's the one you didn't respond to..

[Original Comment]

Yes, the evidence is that it's impossible to state your claim that Sarvis took mostly from democrats when the sample is 2 exit polls totaling 0.163% of the voting population.

It doesn't matter that CNN or the NYT said it's right, true or scientific.

Let's be generous and say that the unstated Langer poll included 2K people, what does that bring it to? 0.253% of the voting public.

Then lets be super generous and say CNN which didn't state it's numbers added another 3k. That brings it up to 0.388% of the entire voting population.

So you're going to extrapolate that all the Sarvis voters were really just democrats and independents that wouldn't have voted for Cuccinelli anyway based on far less than one half of one percent of voters because CNN said so? C'mon.

Unless there are more polls out there (I haven't found any), this is highly suspect.


It's a bunch of lies you're being fed in an attempt to use PR to smooth over the fact that you just got used by a handful of billionaires. The sooner you realize this the better off we'll all be.


Again, if you object based on no other information than orthodoxy, you are not standing on solid ground.

I even said the WP poll was pre-election, so it seems the problem is you and not everyone else.


Wrong again. I made 4 significant points, excluding the exit poll nonsense, in my original comment that I believe point to an ulterior motive.

You're the one that copy/pasted your 6 tired articles that quote each other in order to rehash this conversation you abandoned in the last thread after I pointed out the absurdity of your conclusions.

Keep clinging to your piss poor polls. I couldn't care less.

Your points

Your points were anecdotal facts based on pre-election polling (the same kind of polling you dismiss from my arguments).

Ron/Rand came to town, the polls tightened, then the GOP launched smear campaign against Sarvis.....And you cant figure out why Sarvis % went down and ended up drawing more liberals than conservatives????


..Except I didn't mention pre-election polling.

Sarvis's "smear campaign" was due to his questionable backers, his knack for leaving his comments open for interpretation, a defacto endorsement of technocrat economics along with a still powerful distrust for the Bob Barr party.

Besides, it's a gubernatorial race. You think he was treated unfairly? Show me a candidate that lost and felt like he got a fair shake.

The fact that he entered the race, secured a spot on the ballot could have had just as much influence on proto-liberty minded VA Republicans as anything else.

Libertarians are still human beings and susceptible to the same things as everyone else.. such as lazily voting down party line when available.

Besides, when's the last time a Libertarian was elected to the Democratic party? Larry McDonald from Georgia in 1975. If there's such a huge pool of these people how come not one has made it to DC since?

Where are they today?

How come they all seem to be forming inside the GOP?

Don't assume voters are going to do any work in trying to figure these things out. They could just as easily still be voting according to party.

You simply can not declare to know what was in the minds of 146,000 people at a given time. Not even if CNN says so.

So it's OK that you still beat your wife...

...because you are not just a libertarian but human too?

And you can make up lies about people's positions as long as the lie is all you can imagine given the limits of your ignorance and iq.

Got it!

Bruce Majors, Libertarian for Mayor



I don't have a clue what you think I was saying, but clearly your comparison is wildly out of place.

Along with your useless name calling, which I won't engage you in.

I never lied about anyone's position (I'm assuming you're referring to the candidates.) I don't like any of them and have no reason to mischaracterize their positions.

But still, I think the choice was clear and the actions of rich men speak for themselves.

Have a nice day, Bruce.

Cuccinelli supporters lied about Sarvis

And you said what can one expect of them, including the Ron Paul supporters among them, because they are only human even if they are libertarians.

Bruce Majors, Libertarian for Mayor


Social Conservatism happened too

I don't think that the Pauls understand how socially liberal the new liberty movement is. A lot of people simply couldn't bring themselves to vote for a person who crusaded for anti-sodomy laws in the court. I suspect libertarians care a lot more about social issues in local and state races because that's where most of the social offenses happen and there's no foriegn policy involved.

I would suggest Rand learn from this and moderate his social positions a little more for the general election in 2016. He should guard his flank by making someone who's socially liberal like Gary Johnson his VP.

Senator Paul and social conservatism

I really like Rand Paul and have defended him against libertarian complaints that he is not libertarian enough, or wasn't at first when he was going to Iowa and speaking to church groups and making gratuitous anti gay cracks. I've defended him face to face against Carla Howell, the 2011-2012 executive director of the Libertarian Party.

So I won a lunch with Rand Paul in the Senate dining room earlier this year at an America's Future Foundation raffle. Me, Senator Paul, his communications director, and my Breitbart style conservatarian gal pal from Virginia.

Rand had just had a panel in DC on school choice and urban minorities. His communications lady mentioned that I had ran for Congress as a Libertarian in DC and got the LP ballot status. Rand jokingly asked me why Eleanor Holmes Norton was still in Congress. I pointed out I got the same percentage of the vote in DC that Romney did.

I then mentioned that I had gotten a dozen or so libertarians and tea partiers to go to a rally back in 2009 that was a rally against the Obama/Durbin move to snatch education vouchers away from DC kids. And I realized up on the dias about to speak for school choice was...Marion Barry.

I then told the Senator I used to have this fantasy of talking Marion Barry into running for mayor as a Libertarian, because he doesn't pay his income tax, he presumably thinks drugs and hookers should be legal, and then I discover he is for school choice. Kind of like when the New York Libertarians started to run Howard Stern, as a publicity stunt.

With a little more energy and tension than his voice normally betrays, Rand exclaimed "Just because we think that stuff should be legal doesn't mean we believe we should do it!"

I was a little surprised at the reaction. He didn't seem to get that my fantasy was expressed as a kind of humor, or that I was aware that one might not favor doing everything one believes should be legal..

Bruce Majors, Libertarian for Mayor