Quinnipiac Poll: McAuliffe's Lead Shrinks to Four Points

[RonPaulFanInGA]

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institutes-and-centers/polling-institute/virginia/release-detail?ReleaseID=1971

Was seven points a week ago. The polls seems to be trending towards Cuccinelli, but there might not be enough time.

[TER]

If Mr. Sarvis were not in the race, the poll shows, Mr. McAuliffe would have a razor-thin 2-point edge, 47 percent to 45 percent.


I hope the people voting for Sarvis ditch him the last minute and vote for Cuccinelli

[RonPaulFanInGA]

I hope the people voting for Sarvis ditch him the last minute and vote for Cuccinelli

Sarvis = the "Libertarian" that opposes tax cuts.

[brandon]

Isn't that within the margin of error?

Not a chance in hell I'd vote for Cuccinelli if I lived there. Without knowing much about the Libertarian I'd still say I would vote for them.

[FrankRep]

Sarvis = the "Libertarian" that opposes tax cuts.

BenSwann.com calls him out!

Is The Virginia Gov. Libertarian Candidate Even A Libertarian?
http://benswann.com/is-the-virginia-gov-libertarian-candidate-even-a-libertarian/

[AuH20]

Sarvis needs to be pelted with eggs Hannity style. On top of it, he's not really a libertarian. I could see if Sarvis was a righteous Thomas Woods type libertarian, but there are too many Bill Maher type libertarians in Virginia who are susceptible to this entire MSM spin.

[AuH20]

Sarvis = the "Libertarian" that opposes tax cuts.

He's a sensitive libertarian. Did he also tell you that he's half asian and married to a black woman. Somehow these are valid reasons to vote for him. I didn't like this guy's angle from the start and my suspicions were confirmed when some of those quotes leaked. You can tell alot by a candidate by the way they promote themselves.

[cajuncocoa]

And Cuccinelli is a "liberty candidate" who wants to strengthen sodomy laws. Great choice they have in VA. :rolleyes:

[cjm]

And Cuccinelli is a "liberty candidate" who wants to strengthen sodomy laws. Great choice they have in VA. :rolleyes:

Do you have a link for that? I saw that he defended the one that was already on the books, but I haven't seen anything on his support for new, stronger laws in this area.

[malkusm]

I would vote for Cuccinelli if I were there for pragmatic reasons, but I think that the practice of demonizing Sarvis is perhaps unwarranted. If you look at the crosstabs in this poll, he's pulling equal support from both McAuliffe and Cuccinelli (47% of Sarvis voters say that McAuliffe is their second choice, 45% say Cuccinelli).

[AuH20]

Do you have a link for that? I saw that he defended the one that was already on the books, but I haven't seen anything on his support for new, stronger laws in this area.

Cuccinelli wants to ban marital touching as well. I heard it on MSNBC. Seriously, at this point, the fabrications about Cuccinelli's positions are bordering on the absurd.

[supermario21]

I'd only vote for the libertarian if Sarvis were a Rothbardian type. But he's not. He's not even good as a Reason magazine libertarian. He's a "let's legalize gay marriage and only marijuana" feel-good "fauxtarian." I like supporting libertarians when I get the chance, but I've gotta downright love the platform. Ohio's 2014 libertarian candidate seems to be a Rothbardian so I have no qualms voting for him. But Sarvis...he's a fake.

[Elias Graves]

Never fear. The ballot boxes are already stuffed full of D ballots.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

I'd only vote for the libertarian if Sarvis were a Rothbardian type. But he's not. He's not even good as a Reason magazine libertarian. He's a "let's legalize gay marriage and only marijuana" feel-good "fauxtarian."

Right, a Bill Maher Libertarian. The type that thinks calling yourself a Libertarian only entails supporting gay marriage, abortion and weed.

[AuH20]

Never fear. The ballot boxes are already stuffed full of D ballots.

Not so farfetched, considering who is running. Bill Clinton's bagman.

[cajuncocoa]

Do you have a link for that? I saw that he defended the one that was already on the books, but I haven't seen anything on his support for new, stronger laws in this area.
Whether his support is for a new law or for the old one isn't the issue (it was for the old one) is kind of irrelevant to me....this is 2013. If you don't like oral sex, don't do it!!

The law was struck down earlier this year; Cuccinelli was trying to get it resurrected. He has since been defeated on this issue once again.
http://theweek.com/article/index/247156/ken-cuccinellis-crusade-against-sodomy

[Elias Graves]

Not so farfetched, considering who is running. Bill Clinton's bagman.

Exactly. No hyperbole intended there.

[HOLLYWOOD]

Sarvis = the "Libertarian" that opposes tax cuts.So, is Sarvis a plant to bleed votes from the right? Anyone ever vet this guy?

gotta watch this.

Cooch on C-SPAN's Washington Journal 2010: http://c-spanvideo.org/program/CareMan

Starting at the 21:15 mark, then there's a slamdunk exchange that happens on the next clown caller ... gotta watch the last 5 minutes of the video. Cuccinelli Shines


<object id='cspan-video-player' classid='clsid:d27cdb6eae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000' codebase='http://fpdownload.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=9,0,0,0' align='middle' height='500' width='410'><param name='allowScriptAccess' value='true'/><param name='movie' value='http://www.c-spanvideo.org/videoLibrary/assets/swf/CSPANPlayer.swf?pid=292627-6'/><param name='quality' value='high'/><param name='bgcolor' value='#ffffff'/><param name='allowFullScreen' value='true'/><param name='flashvars' value='system=http://www.c-spanvideo.org/common/services/flashXml.php?programid=221348&style=full'/><embed name='cspan-video-player' src='http://www.c-spanvideo.org/videoLibrary/assets/swf/CSPANPlayer.swf?pid=292627-6' allowScriptAccess='always' bgcolor='#ffffff' quality='high' allowFullScreen='true' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' pluginspage='http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer' flashvars='system=http://www.c-spanvideo.org/common/services/flashXml.php?programid=221348&style=full' align='middle' height='500' width='410'></embed></object>

[AuH20]

Can Obamacare's disastrous rollout help Cuccinelli close or has the damage been done? Cuccinelli is in deep trouble because he didn't have the money nor the medium to refute McAuliffe's ridiculous assertions that he's a modern-day Oliver Cromwell.

[Brett85]

Unfortunately, this poll is an outlier, since other recent polls show that Cuccinelli is behind by double digits. But I hope this poll is right and the others are wrong.

[Carlybee]

Sarvis is good on civil liberties:



Civil Liberties

I am committed to restoring and protecting civil liberties. As Governor, I will:

Protect freedom of religion, speech, press, and assembly.
Reverse the militarization of law-enforcement tactics.
Reform asset-forfeiture laws.
Restore Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Restore voting and gun rights for those convicted of non-violent drug offenses.
Fight against federal overreach and government spying programs.
Restrict law-enforcement use of general surveillance technologies.
Protect internet freedom.

I believe an important part of restoring civil liberties is ending the drug war.

[georgiaboy]

sure would give a boost to Rand if Cuccinelli pulls out a win. kingmaker is a good thing to the GOP establishment.

[Brett85]

Sarvis is good on civil liberties:

Yeah, but he seems to basically be more of a traditional liberal, a Russ Feingold type liberal. He's libertarian on civil liberties and social issues, but progressive and statist on economic issues.

[MichaelDavis]

And Cuccinelli is a "liberty candidate" who wants to strengthen sodomy laws. Great choice they have in VA. :rolleyes:

"Paul has been a critic of the Supreme Court's Lawrence v. Texas decision, in which sodomy laws were ruled unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment. In an essay posted to the Lew Rockwell website, he derisively characterized sodomy laws as "ridiculous", but expressed his fear that federal courts were grossly violating their role of strictly interpreting the Constitution, and felt that they were setting a dangerous precedent of what he characterized as legislating from the bench, by declaring privacy in regards to sexual conduct a constitutional right. Paul said:
Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court in June. The Court determined that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14th amendment "right to privacy". Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution. There are, however, states' rights – rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Sodomy_laws

[MichaelDavis]

Double post.

[Carlybee]

Yeah, but he seems to basically be more of a traditional liberal, a Russ Feingold type liberal. He's libertarian on civil liberties and social issues, but progressive and statist on economic issues.

Which of these are progressive?




Job Creation & Economic Growth

We need to make sure Virginia's economy is robust enough to get people back to work and resilient and flexible enough to meet the many challenges we will face in the years to come.

The key to long-lasting job-creation, economic growth, and rising incomes is open and competitive markets that reward value-creation and operate under the rule of law.

To achieve our goals, we need two types of broad-based reform.

First, we need to root out crony capitalism and return to the Rule of Law. I propose:

Focusing economic regulation and law enforcement on the protection of rights and preservation of an equal playing field for all;
Eliminating ALL regulations that insulate market incumbents from competition;
Ending ALL government subsidies of specific industries or companies;
Removing ALL special tax and regulatory treatment of particular industries or companies;
Keeping government neutral with regard to technological solutions, investment decisions, business inputs and business methods, etc.;
Getting rid of discretionary funds and returning the money to taxpayers.

Second, we need to simplify and streamline the tax system so that revenue raising is transparent and least burdensome to individuals, families, and businesses alike. I propose:

Eliminating the Car Tax, which is unpopular;
Eliminating the BPOL, Machine & Tools, Merchant Capital and other business taxes that hide the cost of taxation, burden employers, and reduce business activity;
Eliminating, or dramatically reducing, the income tax, which reduces employment and lowers take-home pay;
Moving to a uniform consumption tax on all final retail sales of goods and services.
Reforming property taxes by excluding, or lowering the rate applied to, improvements to land;
Prefering, where possible, user fees to general taxes.

From what I can tell he is socially liberal on marriage, abortion and immigration. Many libertarians are as well so not sure we can't call him a libertarian based on that.

[Brett85]

Which of these are progressive?

http://thefederalist.com/2013/10/25/virginia-gubernatorial-candidate-robert-sarvis-libertarian-name/

"Yet Sarvis told Chuck Todd he didn’t actually favor more tax cuts, but finding savings through more “efficiency”. In that interview, he also endorsed expanding the Medicaid program in the state under Obamacare – which most libertarians in Virginia have been fighting tooth and nail."

[Brett85]

Endorsed by hardcore neo-conservative Jennifer Rubin.

http://www.dailypaul.com/303643/neo-cons-support-robert-sarvis-libertarian-party-candidate-for-governor-of-virginia

[VBRonPaulFan]

Which of these are progressive?



From what I can tell he is socially liberal on marriage, abortion and immigration. Many libertarians are as well so not sure we can't call him a libertarian based on that.

Maybe this interview where he offers no real government cuts, just ways to make government more efficient 'that may eventually lead to lower taxes'.

http://video.msnbc.msn.com/daily-rundown/53145353#53145353

About 2:30 in is where he starts going over his policy ideas. Early on, this guy rubbed me the wrong way with his ads. He always pushed the fact that he's mixed and married to a black lady like it was somehow important. He's been pretty wishy-washy on talking about ways in which he'd actually reduce the government at all, instead trying to focus on talking about how he's going to make it more 'efficient' (like we haven't heard that a million times before) to save money.

I can see how people that hate social conservatives would dislike cooch. However, a lot of the state is socially conservative so I can understand why he is the way he is. He's actually been pretty good based on his record. The crimes against nature thing was stupid but it is obvious that his goal was keeping child molesters in jail, not enforcing social policy in the bedroom.

[cjm]

Whether his support is for a new law or for the old one isn't the issue (it was for the old one) is kind of irrelevant to me....this is 2013. If you don't like oral sex, don't do it!!

My interest in new law vs. existing law is that I'm trying to understand whether the liberty movement gains ground, loses ground, or simply holds ground on each issue. We don't have to invite any of these folks to our homes for dinner, but one of the three will be governor and Virginians need to understand what they will get with each choice.

To use a magazine ban example (since it's easier to quantify magazine capacity), let's say a given State has a magazine capacity limit of 15 rounds and the Democrat wants to limit magazines to 8 rounds while the Republican wants to limit magazines to 12 rounds. Both of those positions lose ground and are both evil -- with the Republican being the lesser of two evils. Most here wouldn't support either candidate. But let's say that the Republican just wants to stay with the 15 round limit. This is no gain for liberty but it's not a loss either. If that candidate stands for the status quo in some areas but provides liberty gains in other areas, that candidate becomes more acceptable.

I hope this explains my interest in knowing whether Cuccinelli was arguing for the status quo or for new stronger laws.


The law was struck down earlier this year; Cuccinelli was trying to get it resurrected. He has since been defeated on this issue once again.
http://theweek.com/article/index/247156/ken-cuccinellis-crusade-against-sodomy

This article makes it sound like Cuccinelli's anti-sodomy position is a moot point when it comes to the threat of actual legislation.

[Brett85]

McAuliffe's lead has gone from 17 points to 7 points in Rasmussen's most recent poll.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2013/virginia/election_2013_virginia_governor

[FSP-Rebel]

This article makes it sound like Cuccinelli's anti-sodomy position is a moot point when it comes to the threat of actual legislation.
IIRC, this whole sodomy thing started over some predator of underage teens and has now been contrived by big left money from Bloomberg to paint Cooch as being against contraceptives in order to confuse women and cripple his libertarian support channels. It took Rand coming to town to at least give him a chance. This isn't ultimately about oral sex or I'd have a bigger issue with it.

[supermario21]

The problem is that moderate Republicans are FISCAL LIBERALS. People love to chirp about excessive social conservatism, but those NoVA moderate Republicans are the first ones looking to raise taxes and expand Medicaid. Bill Bolling supported the transportation bill and Medicaid expansion. It's funny because 4 years ago, Bolling was perceived as the conservative alternative to McDonell. If Cooch can win, we're definitely pulling things in the right direction. Even in defeat, the political winds fiscally are shifting in our direction. Bolling was the conservative 4 years ago, and now is the "sensible moderate."

[brandon]

IIRC, this whole sodomy thing started over some predator of underage teens and has now been contrived by big left money from Bloomberg to paint Cooch as being against contraceptives in order to confuse women and cripple his libertarian support channels. It took Rand coming to town to at least give him a chance. This isn't ultimately about oral sex or I'd have a bigger issue with it.

The underage teen was 17 fwiw. Consensual sex with a 17 year old is only a misdemeanor in virginia but I think the sodomy law allowed them to get a felony conviction.

[AuH20]

McAuliffe's lead has gone from 17 points to 7 points in Rasmussen's most recent poll.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2013/virginia/election_2013_virginia_governor

C'mon Obamacare. I wonder how many cancellation notices Virginians have received over the last month? Maybe it's enough hot coffee to wake the zombies out of their stupor. Cuccinelli is probably wishing that this race was a month longer.

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

[Lucille]

I'm pulling for Sarvis because the bifactional ruling party isn't.

[Matt Collins]

From a strategic perspective it's important that Ken wins in order for Rand to have a better shot in 2016

[Matt Collins]

Cuccinelli wants to ban marital touching as well. I heard it on MSNBC. Seriously, at this point, the fabrications about Cuccinelli's positions are bordering on the absurd.

You must be new to politics :(

[Brett85]

From a strategic perspective it's important that Ken wins in order for Rand to have a better shot in 2016

Maybe, but Obama won Florida, Virginia, and Ohio in 2012 despite those states having GOP governors, so I don't think that Virginia all of a sudden becomes unwinnable for the GOP candidate in 2016 if Virginia has a Democratic Governor at that time.

[Brett85]

I'm somewhat of a metrics wonk (polling included), and look for indications of reliability in the numbers. The Washington Times report on the Quinnipiac (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/30/terry-mcauliffe-4-points-virginia-governors-race-p/) poll says the poll makeup was self-identified as:
31% Republican
29% Democrat
31% Independent
Does that resemble turnout for recent elections (or anticipated turnout for the election coming up)?

The Roanoke poll released the same day puts the numbers at:
46% McAuliffe
31% Cuccinelli
9% Sarvis
... where the makeup of the poll was:
36% Republican
27% Democrat
24% Independent

So which poll is more in line with the turnout expected for the election?

That doesn't make any sense. The poll with the largest percentage of Republicans has Cuccinelli down by a lot. Did you mean to type that the Roanoke poll has 36% Democrat and 27% Republican?

[GregSarnowski]

My guess is the "wasted vote syndrome" kicks in at the ballot box like it does every single time and Sarvis gets 2-3%, with McAuliffe still winning by a large margin and Cuccinelli having no one to blame it on but himself.

This happens every time in every significant race with a Libertarian. They always poll several multitudes of the actual result.

For example: http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/21/poll-gary-johnson-rakes-in-six-percent-of-the-vote/


Libertarian Party presidential candidate Gary Johnson is supported by six percent of likely voters, according to a new Reason-Rupe poll.


Johnson ended up with barely 1% of the vote and no doubt his average was a lot lower in swing states where the votes actually mattered.

[cjm]

So which poll is more in line with the turnout expected for the election?

We don't have party registration here in Virginia so nobody really knows. Even if you look at exit polls from prior elections and get people to self-identify their party, those numbers come with a margin of error and we can't know if there were precisely 27% or 29% Dems participating in that election. When you then take in exit polls from multiple elections, you just end up with a range. A typical turnout might be 28-35% Republican, etc.

[GunnyFreedom]

Isn't that within the margin of error?

Not a chance in hell I'd vote for Cuccinelli if I lived there. Without knowing much about the Libertarian I'd still say I would vote for them.

The "Libertarian" is even worse.

[GunnyFreedom]

That doesn't make any sense. The poll with the largest percentage of Republicans has Cuccinelli down by a lot. Did you mean to type that the Roanoke poll has 36% Democrat and 27% Republican?

0.99% in Swing State North Carolina.

[Feeding the Abscess]

The "Libertarian" is even worse.

I don't know if he's worse. I will say that he's not what I would call better.

[trey4sports]

Get out the vote!

[cjm]

Isn't that within the margin of error?

Not a chance in hell I'd vote for Cuccinelli if I lived there. Without knowing much about the Libertarian I'd still say I would vote for them.

I live here and I'm voting for Cuccinelli. I listed my reasons here: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?431950-libertarian-Virginians-should-vote-for-Cuccinelli

[AuH20]

I live here and I'm voting for Cuccinelli. I listed my reasons here: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?431950-libertarian-Virginians-should-vote-for-Cuccinelli

I like the summary. It really illuminates the smear job done on Cuccinelli when he has a strong resume as the anti-establishment candidate. The Republican establishment pulled funding from him at the most key time, since they want him to go down in defeat. Neither party wants him as governor.

[TheTyke]

I live here and I'm voting for Cuccinelli. I listed my reasons here: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?431950-libertarian-Virginians-should-vote-for-Cuccinelli

Awesome!! Bring 100 or so voters with ya and work the polls! Go VA!

[Matt Collins]

Maybe, but Obama won Florida, Virginia, and Ohio in 2012 despite those states having GOP governors, so I don't think that Virginia all of a sudden becomes unwinnable for the GOP candidate in 2016 if Virginia has a Democratic Governor at that time.
Fair enough point, but I was also referring to the GOP Primary

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

[jkob]

Hopefully Sarvis's support is overstated and they break toward Cuccinelli

[Patrick Henry]

If Cuccinelli wins, it will be because of Rand and Ron.

[cjm]

If Cuccinelli wins, it will be because of Rand and Ron.

The support of Rand and Ron is definitely important, but if Cuccinelli wins, it will also be due to a massive GOTV effort. Virginia RPFers need to hit their local victory centers (http://rpv.org/find-a-neighborhood-office-near-you) between now and Tuesday to help out.

[FSP-Rebel]

I like the summary. It really illuminates the smear job done on Cuccinelli when he has a strong resume as the anti-establishment candidate. The Republican establishment pulled funding from him at the most key time, since they want him to go down in defeat. Neither party wants him as governor.
That's been my takeaway value in this race all along. In nearly every similar situation like this I usually go republican for sure, that's the real "stick is to the establishment" angle not their third party trix.

[AuH20]

That's been my takeaway value in this race all along. In nearly every similar situation like this I usually go republican for sure, that's the real "stick is to the establishment" angle not their third party trix.

If the establishment backs someone, it's usually a telltale sign that they are an anti-liberty whore. The way the Chamber of Commerce, K Street lobbyists and Republican establishment have treated Cuccinnelli with utter disdain speaks volumes. The undertones of this particular race are extremely easy to read, especially when Jennifer Rubin comes out to endorse Sarvis.

[cjm]

Those hoping to jump start the LP in Virginia should keep this survey question in mind:


1b. (If candidate chosen q1) Would you describe your support for (Candidate of choice) as strongly favoring him, or do you like him but with reservations, or do you support him because you dislike the other candidates?

LIKELY VOTERS............................
CANDIDATE CHOSEN Q1......................
CANDIDATE OF CHOICE Q1............




Tot
McAuliffe
Cuccinelli
Sarvis


Strongly favor
43%
39%
53%
22%


Like/Reservations
23%
27%
22%
9%


Dislike other cands
32%
33%
22%
68%


DK/NA
2%
2%
3%
-





Almost 7 of Sarvis' roughly 10% is pure protest vote. "I'm not the other guy" isn't a good foundation for a movement.

[Keith and stuff]

Sarvis needs to be pelted with eggs Hannity style. On top of it, he's not really a libertarian. I could see if Sarvis was a righteous Thomas Woods type libertarian, but there are too many Bill Maher type libertarians in Virginia who are susceptible to this entire MSM spin.
Those crazy out of state folks that did that used snow and it wasn't cool. Please don't assault people with snow in NH or eggs in VA.

I do agree that hardcore Republican and Democrat libertarians tend to support liberty more than the average Libertarian libertarian. Though, Ken is obviously much less pro-liberty than Ron Paul or Mark Warden. Of course, Sarvis is much less pro-liberty than Gary Johnson, even. Sarvis reminds me of Ken or Bob Barr in belief.

[Keith and stuff]

BTW, other polls were released on the same day.

RCP Average 10/8 - 10/29 -- 45.9 37.4 10.1 McAuliffe +8.5
Quinnipiac 10/22 - 10/28 1182 LV 45 41 9 McAuliffe +4
Rasmussen Reports 10/28 - 10/29 1002 LV 43 36 12 McAuliffe +7
Hampton University 10/24 - 10/27 800 LV 42 36 12 McAuliffe +6
Washington Post 10/24 - 10/27 762 LV 51 39 8 McAuliffe +12
Roanoke College 10/21 - 10/27 838 LV 48 33 10 McAuliffe +15