Skip to comments.
Libertarian Robert Sarvis Drew Record High Votes in Virginia
Daily Beast ^
| November 8, 2013
| by Ben Jacobs
Posted on 11/08/2013 1:17:51 PM PST by Brad from Tennessee
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-104 next last
To: elkfersupper
Thats crap and you know it.In this case it was true.
41
posted on
11/08/2013 1:43:15 PM PST
by
verga
(We used to be the land of the free. Now weÂ’re just the land of the freebie.)
To: Brad from Tennessee
If Sarvis was “pro-choice” so-called, is that just an indicator that voters would have gone to the Party of Death’s candidate in his absence?
42
posted on
11/08/2013 1:43:31 PM PST
by
fwdude
( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
To: Brad from Tennessee
“...young, well-educated, pro-choice whites....”
Just the folks who get to pay for Obozocare...fitting.
To: elkfersupper
44
posted on
11/08/2013 1:44:26 PM PST
by
Fledermaus
(If we here in TN can't get rid of the worthless Lamar, it's over.)
To: 3Fingas; beandog
Conservative are about 40$ of the electorate. If we ever want to win elections, we have to convince people who call themselves libertarians and moderates to make common cause with us. How we do this and keep our core principles is the tricky part. I think the best way to accomplish this is to insist on smaller government and focus economic issues.
No, you don't do it by offending your base (Social, Christian Conservatives, who also trend towards fiscal conservative).
You do the Reagan model, you give each group what is really important to it and demand that each group also has to compromise on their 2nd tier issues, i.e.:
1. You give Social conservatives strong support against Abortion and the Gay Agenda
2. You give Fiscal Conservatives strong support for limited and reduced government
3. You give Neo-Cons strong support for a strong, muscular Military
It just so turns out, that your core base agrees with all three of those approaches and if the those individuals that fall strongly in those three groups, to the exclusion of one or two of the others, are smart, they will agree to this strategy.
It is the only way we are going to win.
45
posted on
11/08/2013 1:44:52 PM PST
by
SoConPubbie
(Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
To: frogjerk
Sarvis was a libertarian?Jefferson was a libertarian.
The Founding Fathers were libertarians.
I'm a libertarian and always have been.
I have never voted for a Democrat since I registered to vote in 1970.
To: FR_addict
I saw that too...true to form from that Obozo suck up “conservative”......
To: Fledermaus
To: elkfersupper
The Founding Fathers were libertarians.
So you think the Founders would have been for Open Borders, Abortion, and the Gay Agenda?
49
posted on
11/08/2013 1:47:31 PM PST
by
SoConPubbie
(Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
To: SoConPubbie
So you think the Founders would have been for Open Borders, Abortion, and the Gay Agenda?Of course.
They would have thought those matters should be left to the states.
To: Brad from Tennessee
Based on the exit polls, the average Sarvis voter was a younger, well-educated, pro-choice white who did not identify with either political party.I wonder if these "low information" voters know that Starvis was a plant by the Democrats to siphon away votes for Cuccinelli? Starvis was not a Libertarian.
This younger, well-educated, pro-choice group identify with Democrats because they clearly have a disdain for the sanctity of life. After all, abortion avoids the responsibility and cost of raising children and supports the culture of death.
51
posted on
11/08/2013 1:49:40 PM PST
by
olezip
(Time obliterates the fictions of opinion and confirms the decisions of nature. ~ Cicero)
To: Brad from Tennessee
The GOP needs to get a clue but they are TOO STUPID. People do not like what they are peddling and the status quo politicians they support. People want something else (both on the Conservative and Lib side).
The tea party could capitalize on this in a big way, but they too have their blind side, though not as bad as the establishment GOP.
52
posted on
11/08/2013 1:50:08 PM PST
by
Lorianne
(fedgov, taxporkmoney)
To: elkfersupper
How can federal immigration policy be left to the states? Once someone’s a citizen, they’re a citizen of any state. So you can’t have one state making a decision to legalize anyone they want with the other 49 having no veto over it.
53
posted on
11/08/2013 1:50:48 PM PST
by
JediJones
(The #1 Must-see Filibuster of the Year: TEXAS TED AND THE CONSERVATIVE CRUZ-ADE)
To: elkfersupper
They would have thought those matters should be left to the states.
You really don't know your history or constitution, do you?
Do you really believe that the founders meant for the border of the UNITED STATES, to be left up to the states?
54
posted on
11/08/2013 1:51:22 PM PST
by
SoConPubbie
(Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
To: 3Fingas
But there are lots of ways that libertarians do not agree with the conservatives at all. In fact, they think the conservatives are as bad as dems in a few cases. Things like drug legalization, abortion, gay rights. In some ways, there are big government conservatives. “More control over certain groups of people, less control over me.”
Where would a libertarian find common ground with conservatives in that case?
55
posted on
11/08/2013 1:53:03 PM PST
by
christx30
(Freedom above all.)
To: SoConPubbie
I am with you on Reagan approach. However, the electorate has changed since that time. Messaging must be different on some social issues. It must be more about what you are for and not what you are against. If you frame traditional values wrong you will repel the very middle of the road voters we need to win.
56
posted on
11/08/2013 1:53:22 PM PST
by
3Fingas
(Sons and Daughters for Freedom and Rededicaton to the Principles of the U.S. Constitution...)
To: Brad from Tennessee
I learned my lesson about 3rd parties when big ears ran and spoiled it so Clinton won. Twice. I would love a really conservative actual Tea Party but it would be very difficult to get one started that pulled enough votes, it would take years and in the meantime we would become a dictatorship with no free elections, we are almost there now.
57
posted on
11/08/2013 1:53:54 PM PST
by
calex59
To: tflabo
“Why are so many voters just pure idiots?”
I live in Minnesota. I ask myself that same question just about every election cycle.
To: Lorianne
The Tea Party IS the alternative to the establishment. Libertarians are a radical movement like the homosexual lobby. There is no libertarian tradition in America. The Tea Party is all about getting back to conservative, founding principles and rolling back progressive ideas. A movement that’s for open borders, same-sex marriage, cutting of our military and legalized drugs has more in common with progressives than not.
59
posted on
11/08/2013 1:55:31 PM PST
by
JediJones
(The #1 Must-see Filibuster of the Year: TEXAS TED AND THE CONSERVATIVE CRUZ-ADE)
To: elkfersupper
To the article which says that most of Sarvis’ base is liberal leaning Millennials.
I’d rather Republicans win (and we take on RINOS in Primaries) than left-wing/Marxist Democrats win who we know are actively trying to destroy America! (and I’m 33).
60
posted on
11/08/2013 1:58:03 PM PST
by
JSDude1
(Defeat Hagan, elect a Constutional Conservative: Dr. Greg Brannon!)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-104 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson