The Cooch is currently taking out a contract on Robert Sarvis

[jmowreader]

Without Sarvis, the Cooch would be sitting on an insurmountable 100,000-plus lead. With him, the Cooch is going to be sitting on his La-z-boy wondering why God hates him.

[flamingdem]

1. Dems got lucky

[Lex]

2. Maybe he'll take his vaginal probe and go home now. nt

[longship]

3. Maybe he likes it where the sun don't shine.

Just speculatin'.

[bullwinkle428]

4. You KNOW the Virginia Repukes are screaming "FUCK SARVIS!!!"

the way some here have done regarding Nader in 2000!

[Jim Lane]

5. I have more sympathy for Sarvis than for Nader

If Sarvis is a standard-issue Libertarian (I don't know anything about him beyond his party label), then there are major issues on which he'd find a Republican administration superior (e.g., shafting poor people), but also major issues on which he'd prefer the Democrats (e.g., personal liberties). It therefore makes some sense to run as a third party. My reference to "sympathy" doesn't mean that I want to abolish the income tax and free public education; it means that, if there's no Libertarian on the ballot, then libertarian voters can face a difficult choice between the two major-party candidates.

Nader's third-party run, by contrast, was foolish because there was no major issue on which Nader could plausibly say that the Republicans' position was better than that of the Democrats. The best he could do was to state or imply that there were some issues on which there was no meaningful difference. Given that there would be no advantages to a Republican win, he should have run in the Democratic primaries.

[FSogol]

6. Sarvis is a republican who couldn't seem to win a single primary, so he grabbed

a libertarian mantel. Getting 6% is his biggest win ever. I'm sure he's busy studying up on his libertarian beliefs for fundraising purposes. More proof that the libertarians are nothing more than gullible chumps.

[Jim Lane]

7. OK, I was charitably assuming him to be a genuine libertarian.

Let me say that I have sympathy for the genuine libertarians who voted for him. It's bad enough for them when their choice is a Democrat who wants to use government power for redistributionist policies, or a Republican who wants to use government power for theocratic policies -- because the true libertarians oppose both. If they now have a third choice, of a shameless opportunist who's just trying to co-opt their label, then that makes their situation even worse.

But, yes, if they fell for something like this then they are gullible chumps.

Thanks for the information!