Annandale :
Fairfax Underground
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
carpetbagger is going to win governors race
Posted by:
sukiung
()
Date: November 01, 2013 08:08PM
These Saul Alinsky tactics are being used against Cucinelli in the governors race. Let's not be stupid people. Libertarians are going to get McAuliffe elected if we are not careful. You have made your point. How about trying to work with people who share most of your ideology? Did we learn nothing from Ross Perot? Do some research. just heard on Politico that McAuliffe is outspending Cucinelli 25:1 !!! What does that tell you? People who live no where near NOVA are involved in this battle.
http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2012/04/13/12_ways_to_use_saul_alinskys_rules_for_radicals_against_liberals/page/full
http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2012/04/13/12_ways_to_use_saul_alinskys_rules_for_radicals_against_liberals/page/full
Re: carpetbagger is going to win governors race
Posted by:
Bill.N.
()
Date: November 02, 2013 03:08PM
Absolutely moronic.
The only stupidity here was nominating Cuccinelli and Jackson in the first place. The Democrats used up their only viable candidate for governor in the 2012 U.S. Senate race. McAuliffe was their "We don't have anyone else" candidate. His only strength was his ability to raise money. The Republicans should have walked away with this election. Instead they choose to nominate candidates that even a number within the Republican party have problems with. Where do you think the poll numbers would be today if instead of having Cuccinelli heading the ticket the Republicans were running Bolling?
The next idiocy in your post is assuming that Libertarians are Republicans at heart. Libertarians didn't break with Republicans because they thought Republicans were not conservative enough. They broke with Republicans because they thought Republicans were conservative on the wrong issues. Many of the issues which divide Republicans from Libertarians are the issues that Cuccinelli and Jackson are known for.
The third assumption is that Sarvis's numbers come from Libertarians. There are nowhere near that many Libertarians in Virginia. A large number of those polled who say they support Sarvis are Democrats and Republicans upset with their parties' candidates and independents who are nauseated by the choices both major parties have offered. I've assumed that a number of those claiming to be undecided or Libertarians were Republican voters disenchanted with Cuccinellin, but who would ultimately vote for him. However if you are actually aiming at breaking up the Sarvis block, you are going to see voters go both ways, and a number of independents will simply stay home.
The final stupidity is in assuming that the so called Libertarian voters have made their point. Most of those people are there because they are nauseated by the choices of the major parties. What has been done by Cuccinelli (or McAuliffe for that matter) to indicate they realize THEY ARE WRONG, and that they are going to alter their views in return for so called Libertarian voters' support?
The problem with the Perot revolution was not that it delivered the presidency to Bill Clinton. The problem was that it delivered the major parties into the hands of their more extreme elements. Since then each time a party loses its extremists assume it was because they weren't pure enough. Until these people come to realize that they need to modify their views to make them acceptable to those "in the middle" things will get worse. Having a third party gather up enough votes that it swings the election one way or the other would be the best way to send that message.
The only stupidity here was nominating Cuccinelli and Jackson in the first place. The Democrats used up their only viable candidate for governor in the 2012 U.S. Senate race. McAuliffe was their "We don't have anyone else" candidate. His only strength was his ability to raise money. The Republicans should have walked away with this election. Instead they choose to nominate candidates that even a number within the Republican party have problems with. Where do you think the poll numbers would be today if instead of having Cuccinelli heading the ticket the Republicans were running Bolling?
The next idiocy in your post is assuming that Libertarians are Republicans at heart. Libertarians didn't break with Republicans because they thought Republicans were not conservative enough. They broke with Republicans because they thought Republicans were conservative on the wrong issues. Many of the issues which divide Republicans from Libertarians are the issues that Cuccinelli and Jackson are known for.
The third assumption is that Sarvis's numbers come from Libertarians. There are nowhere near that many Libertarians in Virginia. A large number of those polled who say they support Sarvis are Democrats and Republicans upset with their parties' candidates and independents who are nauseated by the choices both major parties have offered. I've assumed that a number of those claiming to be undecided or Libertarians were Republican voters disenchanted with Cuccinellin, but who would ultimately vote for him. However if you are actually aiming at breaking up the Sarvis block, you are going to see voters go both ways, and a number of independents will simply stay home.
The final stupidity is in assuming that the so called Libertarian voters have made their point. Most of those people are there because they are nauseated by the choices of the major parties. What has been done by Cuccinelli (or McAuliffe for that matter) to indicate they realize THEY ARE WRONG, and that they are going to alter their views in return for so called Libertarian voters' support?
The problem with the Perot revolution was not that it delivered the presidency to Bill Clinton. The problem was that it delivered the major parties into the hands of their more extreme elements. Since then each time a party loses its extremists assume it was because they weren't pure enough. Until these people come to realize that they need to modify their views to make them acceptable to those "in the middle" things will get worse. Having a third party gather up enough votes that it swings the election one way or the other would be the best way to send that message.