Reason: Sarvis didn't cost Cuch the election

[Matt Collins]

http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/11/sarvis-non-role-in-mcauliffes-victory-ov

[cjm]

Covered in the other thread:


Cuccinelli lost because he didn't dance with who brought him. It's as simple as that.

[HOLLYWOOD]

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQDI5hErdmjWjMy41yCtkcupD4-3zNC1dMMPujo6lz_95fU1Wo5https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSg6lzWmwO6R58KupdkF6Bke3gIfGWDP pIK_zSBj9Vl8VxjmDi7-w
http://blogs-images.forbes.com/stevenbertoni/files/2012/02/031212-forbes-cover-adelson11-230x300.jpg

[phill4paul]

Some Republicans, no matter how you spell it out, simply will not believe that.

"and we'd have gotten away with it too, if not for those meddling kids!!! Arghh! Blargh! Blargh."

[jhon]

What same-sex "marriage" has done to Massachusetts It's far worse than most people realize October 20, 2008: http://www.massresistance.org/docs/marriage/effects_of_ssm.html

[phill4paul]

What same-sex "marriage" has done to Massachusetts It's far worse than most people realize October 20, 2008: http://www.massresistance.org/docs/marriage/effects_of_ssm.html

Then the correct answer is to get government out of the marriage business.

[Ender]

Then the correct answer is to get government out of the marriage business.


Absolutely.

The state marriage license came about to stop interracial marriage; it has NO place in private lives and relationships.

[jhon]

In the Republican Debate Aired June 13, 2011 - 20:00 ET Ron Paul (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1106/13/se.02.html) noted his position on marriage as follows: get the government out of it. Why doesn’t it go to the church? And why doesn’t it to go to the individuals? I don’t think government should give us a license to get married. It should be in the church.: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1106/13/se.02.html

[jhon]

-=- It is imperative to comprehend the for-profit business structure that has been built up around our abortion industry. For, without the consent of the mothers who have this procedure, many under the age of 16, these unwanted aborted fetuses are collected (harvested) during these procedures and sold on the medical research market to the highest bidder. From the collecting of stem cells for research, to the growing of vaccine cultures on the human diploid cells that are harvested from these aborted fetuses, this disgusting and horrific act of stealing these undeveloped babies without the permission or knowledge of their mothers will be ceased immediately when I am President.
Planned Parenthood and other guilty parties practicing this barbaric and inhumane black market trade will be dealt with by a jury of their peers, preferably by the mothers of these discarded babies, who never knew their baby’s fate due to the non-disclosure of this infant theft and harvesting. I will do everything in my power to discontinue this multi-billion dollar, international infant death-trade.
One solution will be to immediately stop any government funding or assistance to the act of abortion, and to this industry that has built up around abortion. If this is the choice one makes for one’s baby, that person will not have government’s support. Government and the taxpayers who support government will not fund this practice in any way. Consent to this abhorrent skin-trade will never again have the implied consent of the voting public: http://clint4p.com/abortion-and-adoption/

[Brian4Liberty]

400077809768353792

[alucard13mm]

Question is.. why did democrats donate money to Sarvis then.. they obviously they shouldve known based on poll data.

Seems interesting how R's brushed off L's and D's kinda funded L's.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Question is.. why did democrats donate money to Sarvis then.. they obviously they shouldve known based on poll data.

Seems interesting how R's brushed off L's and D's kinda funded L's.

Perhaps Sarvis supported an issue that McAuliffe didn't. Or the bundler just didn't like McAuliffe.

There could be hundreds, even thousands, of reasons why it happened.

[RabbitMan]

You guys are right, it was opposition to same-sex marriage and abortions that cost him the election, not Sarvis.

[RonPaulMall]

Perhaps Sarvis supported an issue that McAuliffe didn't. Or the bundler just didn't like McAuliffe.

There could be hundreds, even thousands, of reasons why it happened.

Could be hundreds, but the most likely reason is because in nearly every election in history up until this point, L's have cost R's votes and not D's. And the only people that were arguing that Sarvis would cost McAuliffe more than Cooch were people like us, who Democratic operatives don't pay the slightest attention to. Also, in order to anticipate what happened you'd have to accept as a premise McAuliffe is so sleazy and unlikeable that indies and moderate R's who usually vote D when the R candidate is too loony in his social views would instead vote for some goofy looking Libertarian candidate. I don't think its hard to figure why Dems working for McAuliffe would be loath to raise such a possibility, especially since what we are talking about has never happened before.