Libertarian Robert Sarvis Drew Record High Votes in Virginia

Daily Beast ^ | November 8, 2013 | by Ben Jacobs

[verga]

That’s crap and you know it.

In this case it was true.

[fwdude]

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?

[matginzac]

“...young, well-educated, pro-choice whites....”
Just the folks who get to pay for Obozocare...fitting.

[Fledermaus]

Shove it.

[SoConPubbie]

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.

[elkfersupper]

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.

[matginzac]

I saw that too...true to form from that Obozo suck up “conservative”......

[elkfersupper]

Shove it.

Ditto.

[SoConPubbie]

The Founding Fathers were libertarians.

So you think the Founders would have been for Open Borders, Abortion, and the Gay Agenda?

[elkfersupper]

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.

[olezip]

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.

[Lorianne]

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.

[JediJones]

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.

[SoConPubbie]

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?

[christx30]

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?

[3Fingas]

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.

[calex59]

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.

[MplsSteve]

“Why are so many voters just pure idiots?”

I live in Minnesota. I ask myself that same question just about every election cycle.

[JediJones]

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.

[JSDude1]

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).