November 5, 2013

McAuliffe or Cuccinelli — do you care?

They're voting in Virginia today. But do you care?

What's it to you?
  
pollcode.com free polls 

51 comments:

MayBee said...

MacAuliffe is sooooo sleazy. It will be distressing if he wins because it will show there is no price to pay for sleaze. Moreso because in Virginia, it will be politicians and the politically connected voting him.

Broomhandle said...

None of the above. It's an election in a state where the government paycheck rules. The outcome is certain.

Matthew Sablan said...

Very few people I've talked to have been excited to vote FOR McAuliffe. Sure, they'll vote for him, but, it isn't enthusiastic. Cuccinelli's work as AG earned him lots of devoted supporters (and enemies.) I already voted (I'm in Fairfax, VA, by way of Newark, DE), but it was definitely more of a "big picture" vote.

Either way, I'm not holding my breath on this one.

Brando said...

There should be a button for "this election is depressing as the choice is between a Clintonite sleaze and a Tea Party nut and it'd be nice if voters would go with a third party but of course they won't so too bad for Virginia."

4d59df1c-571a-11e0-a572-000bcdcb2996 said...

Wow. The poll shows how out of touch Althouse readers are with reality. You must be so proud.

MadisonMan said...

Are either choices good ones. Not being a resident of VA, I don't know.

My baseline assumption is that the Political Parties have offered up two steaming piles of manure and are asking voters to eat one.

Matthew Sablan said...

MadisonMan: As with most elections, it matters how you define "good choice." I generally think that if you can get someone you can kind of agree with, whose worst impulses/desires can be checked by other government power, that's a good choice [and why I voted the way I did. The worst things about the candidate I voted for will be kept in check very easily due to the separation of powers; the bad things about the other candidate have clearly never been checked and are much worse.]

If by "good choice," we mean unequivocally awesome, then, alas, no.

Marshal said...

"But do you care?"

No. Cuchinelli has no future outside Virginia. McAuliffe is already a known crony capitalist opportunist whose continued ability to leach off taxpayers will be determined by the Clinton's fortunes rather than this election.

It would be nice if those calling their opponents anti-American for resisting a vast expansion of government control would be rebutted. But the tiny proportion of moderate liberals seems to have been effectively silenced, so we might as well wish for unicorns.


At a rally held Sunday for Terry McAuliffe, the Democrat nominee for governor of Virginia, liberal Democrats -- including President Obama -- slammed GOP nominee Ken Cuccinelli and the Tea Party as un-American extremists.

madAsHell said...

Voter fraud wins!!

Beth said...

I live just south of DC in VA and can't bring myself to vote for either one. I fully support the Tea Party, but Cuchinelli is too terrible on gay rights. I don't normally vote social issues, but this is one time I can't vote for someone who actively works against rights for me and my wife and son. I can't vote for McAuliffe either. If I wanted to live in a broke ass blue state, I could move 40 miles north and live in Maryland.

Matthew Sablan said...

Cuccinelli has a theoretical future, if he is a stellar governor. The problem is that, like every Republican, any even moderately silly accusation [dogs on roofs! Women in binders!] becomes a never-ending media rallying cry to other-ize them. I've heard more about Cuccinelli's dislike for oral than I have about MacAulliffe's sleaziest behaviors (like his green cars, the Lincoln bedroom, etc.)

Clyde said...

There's no option for "I don't live in VA so I don't have a dog in the fight." I don't know much about Cucinnelli, but I do know that I find McAuliffe loathesome, so I'd vote against him if I lived in VA.

Matthew Sablan said...

Also: If given two bad options, I default to Republican because I can trust the media to hold them accountable. A Mitt Romney could never have sold guns to drug cartels, had them be used to murder Mexicans and Americans, and gotten away with the media wondering why Democrats were so stupid to keep asking whether we should have done it.

The Drill SGT said...

MM,

Note, I've already voted for the GOP candidate...

McAuliffe is a Politician who has never won an office. Let that sink in... He was the Money guy in the Clinton campaigns and Lost when he ran for the VA Gov in 2009.

His plan for VA as governor seems to be like Obama, to campaign for the next 4 years. He only has two modes, raise money and kiss babies.

very unserious as a candidate. Early in the campaign, he was asked to name the seats in his proposed cabinet. Not who he was going to name, but which state departments were traditionally considered cabinet level positions. He was clueless.

His economic plan? Go to Washington and bring back money...

He has outspent the GOP by 3 to 1 driven by his national address book.

The ads have all been about how the GOP candidate will outlaw birth control.

description: sleezy...

Paul Brinkley said...

Straw poll among my friends says the biggest thing liberals have against Cuccinelli is his positions on women's issues. Biggest thing conservatives have against McAuliffe is that he's a life-long political wheeler-dealer. I live in MD, so I can't vote. If I could, I might very well vote for Sarvis.

The media has run more negative stories on Cuccinelli than McAuliffe, so there's that.

The Drill SGT said...

Beth, for better or worse, that is a vote for McAuliffe

PS: the other McAuliffe buzz word: Investment

PB Reader said...

McAuliffe just seems creepy.

MadisonMan said...

See, I see the last name McAuliffe and I think Christa.

(Ventures to the internet).

Aah. Terry McAuliffe. So he was annointed the candidate by the Powers that Be in the Party. Very bad idea, as anyone here in Wisconsin call tell you.

Well, I hope he loses. I don't like Entitled Candidates. (Looking at TT and Mary Burke)

Matthew Sablan said...

See, I take "will ban birth control" with a grain of salt since, well, no one I know [and I know people really, really far right] have ever advocated that.

On gay rights, I trust that the realpolitik will keep any less than Matt-Approved stances in check.

Bob R said...

I already voted for Sarvis (the Libertarian.) Only time I've done that. I always felt it was the "serious" thing to do to choose the lesser of two evils. This year it was just too evil.

Chef Mojo said...

"This is a race for governor of Virginia, nothing more, and I really wish both these nimrods could lose."

Sigh. I'm getting ready to head out to vote here in Central Virginia. Not enthusiastic at all.

None of your damn business who I'm voting for.

Big Mike said...

@Beth, are you the Beth who lived in Naw'leens when she was an active commentator on Althouse?

If so, welcome to my state and I wish your first election for governor had more attractive candidates.

I voted for Cuccinelli about a half hour ago for reasons 1, 3, and 7. I seriously dislike his social conservatism, but I'll swallow it to avoid getting a person as sleezy and fiscally irresponsible as the Democrat in the governor's mansion. Plus Obamacare is trying to kill me and I want to send a message that I'd rather live, thank you kindly.

Big Mike said...

@BobR, were you planning to vote for the Democrat anyway? Because once past his social conservatism, Cuccinelli takes the more libertarian positions than Sarvis does.

Eric said...

As summarized by someone on the elevator this morning: "it's the crook vs. the kook." Ah, the state of our political class.

Shawn Levasseur said...

I’m a Libertarian partisan, so I’m hoping Sarvis beats all projections, causing some who voted the “lesser of two” regret their choice.

Ctmom4 said...

I am amazed that four people voted for "McAuliffe is the better man" . I am fairly certain that is the first time that has ever been said about Terry McAuliffe. I m not sure that his wife would even vote for that one.

Blue Ox said...

I’m a Libertarian partisan, so I’m hoping Sarvis beats all projections, causing some who voted the “lesser of two” regret their choice.

Meaning, what? That you'll celebrate when Sarvis nets 10% of the vote while MacAuliffe lights his first cigar in the governor's mansion with a $100 bill provided by the taxpayers?

Sabinal said...

I'm with Matt on the worse candidates, but after seeing how TX, ND, and NC pushed for abortion restrictions via their own congresses without approval or at least input of the citizens, I voted for the sleaze.

And the dude who talked to Eric is right -it IS the kook vs the crook.

What gets me is if Cooch wins, it will be because the VA Dems are so week,they had to pick a dude solely because he applied on time. That either shows them to be idiots or were pressured (conspiracy theory time; the Clintons pressured the Va Dems *not* to challenge Terry, just like they shut down Warner for Pres back in 2008 so that Hill could have the seat)

YoungHegelian said...

Don't the people of the great Commonwealth of Virginia deserve better candidates for governor than these three guys?

I don't care much for Cuccinelli, but that the Demos can run some slimeball like McAuliffe and then have the temerity to bitch about "the corrupting influence of money in politics" is simply gobsmacking. The man has never done anything else except raise money for the Dems.

Blue Ox said...

MacAuliffe is sooooo sleazy. It will be distressing if he wins because it will show there is no price to pay for sleaze. Moreso because in Virginia, it will be politicians and the politically connected voting him.

MayBee is 100% correct.

Bob R said...

@BigMike. They'd have had to torture me to get me to vote for the corrupt, sleazy, crony capitalist MacAwful. (His only political belief is that the highest bidder rules.) And while I vigorously disagree with Cuccinelli on social issues, but I've voted for other social conservatives (e.g. MacDonald) because I agree with them on pocketbook issues. But while the VA GOP may have good POSITIONS on economics, they don't VOTE that way in the legislature. Hell, they couldn't even sell off the ABC stores like MacDonald want. The VA GOP talks small government and free markets and delivers a big, fat state government and lots of regulations. Screw 'em.

Big Mike said...

@BobR, all too true. It's not yet noon; too early to get drunk.

Deirdre Mundy said...

None of your options summed up my total apathy, so I didn't vote.

mccullough said...

Isn't most of Virginia dependent on the federal government? A lot of government contractors, consultants, and workers there. The suburbs of northern Virginia are dependent on the federal checks. McAuliffe seems like the right guy for the job given the nature of the state.

David said...

"Sleazebags like MacAuliffe should not be elected to any public office, regardless of their political views."

That's my vote.

cubanbob said...

All of these Virginia commenters here who are going to sit this one out or vote for the fake Libertarian are the same mindset that got us a Clinton and an Obama. I don't live in Virginia but if I did being a practical person when given a choice between bad and worse I choose bad. Otherwise worse will win. At least Cuchinelli as AG tried to fight ZeroCare and if elected governor with the right AG still would have a chance to fight this again on other grounds. But go ahead, stay home and let McAwfull win but please don't moan about him here later.

Chef Mojo said...

Hey, cubanbob! Remember when I voted twice for GWB, and he brought down the size of government?

Yeah. Me neither.

I'm tired of this lesser of two evils crap. If the Republican Party of Virginia is bound and determined to commit suicide over such a poor choice as Cuccinelli, I say let 'em have at it.

McAullife? Whatever. He'll be up against a Republican legislature that despises him, and he can't run again.

Maybe in 4 years, the Republicans in Virginia will have enough brain cells to rub together to qualify as sentient beings. But I doubt it.

And for all of you whining about how Sarvis isn't a "real" libertarian? Well, now you know how we feel when the Republicans put up losers like McCain and Romney. And when you nominate Christie in '16, don't come around looking for handouts from me.

Unknown said...

There should be an option for Sarvis as the protest vote. By the way, I voted for Sarvis but it was not a vote "for McAuliffe" since otherwise I would have stayed home. I suspect there are many like me and Cuccinelli would have lost (I fully expect him to lose) even if Sarvis wasn't in the race. I usually vote republican but there is no way I could stomach voting for Cuccinelli.

Unknown said...

There should be an option for Sarvis as the protest vote. By the way, I voted for Sarvis but it was not a vote "for McAuliffe" since otherwise I would have stayed home. I suspect there are many like me and Cuccinelli would have lost (I fully expect him to lose) even if Sarvis wasn't in the race. I usually vote republican but there is no way I could stomach voting for Cuccinelli.

Big Mike said...

@Deidre, don't you live in Indiana? Explains your apathy.

MattL said...

Sarvis is the worst Libertarian candidate I've ever seen. I think McCauliffe, let alone Cuccinelli has more libertarian positions (anyways, McCauliffe could maybe be bought off in favor of some).

I don't agree with everything Cuccinelli advocates for, but more than with most candidates. Obviously, as noted, there's still the legislature. I get a lot of literature from my Republican Delegate telling me how bipartisan he is, which almost makes me want to vote against him.

I think the basics of McCauliffe's campaign is to convince voters that Cuccinelli plans to enslave the women and forcefully impregnate them. With the truckloads of cash he has, it seems to have worked.

Oh, well, maybe McCauliffe can swindle enough from the Feds or life insurance policy holders to pay for increased Medicaid and whatever else he gets away with spending.

cubanbob said...

Chef Mojo said…

Dude I vote for the most conservative candidate possible in the primaries but there are only two realistic choices in the general. I don't waste my vote on feel-good vanity votes. As for GWB its all well and fine to whine and yes he didn't exactly live up to my low expectations but then again would you have been happier with Al Gore or Lurch as president because that was the only real choice. Thanks for for electing Obama and thanks for McAwfull tonight if you live in VA.

Marshal said...

MattL said...
I think the basics of McCauliffe's campaign is to convince voters that Cuccinelli plans to enslave the women and forcefully impregnate them.


Cuccinelli did express support for sodomy laws and it likely cost him the election. Idiotic accusations would be easier to defend if so many Republicans didn't support stupid shit to begin with.

MattL said...

Marshall,

Yes, supporting the sodomy law was easily the dumbest thing he did. I don't think it cost him the election (though it didn't help), but YMMV.

I still think it was the Orwellian portrayal of "Women's Health." And an overwhelming money / advertising advantage.

Mostly, I'll be glad when the robocalls stop. There should have been a poll option for that.

Matthew Sablan said...

Oh, hey. Good news: Sarvis? Yeah. Backed by an Obama donor. Why do Republican-leaning Libertarians keep getting tricked by Dems backing faux Libertarians?

Marshal said...

MattL said...
I still think it was the Orwellian portrayal of "Women's Health." And an overwhelming money / advertising advantage.


I think these were effective largely due to the sodomy law issue. McAuliffe's money was able to translate this issue to abortion and even contraception (He wants to outlaw oral sex! Who knows what else he's planning!) Without sodomy he's wasting air time beating a dead horse.

Tim said...

Virginians! Virginians! For your lands! For your homes! For your sweethearts! For your wives! For...Virginia! Forward...march!

Big Mike said...

Oh, hey. Good news: Sarvis? Yeah. Backed by an Obama donor. Why do Republican-leaning Libertarians keep getting tricked by Dems backing faux Libertarians?

@Matthew, if you figure it out for gosh sakes let me know.

Inga said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Inga said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Inga said...

Good Lord! Are Virginians nuts?