At Townhall.com, Daniel Doherty reports on Oct 23, 2013 a poll that shows Democratic VA Gubernatorial candidate McAuliffe having a 17% lead over Republican candidate Cuccinelli. ("Poll: McAuliffe: 50%, Cuccinelli: 33%")
To explain the huge lead, Daniel Doherty, as reason (2), blamed the Libertarian candidate, Robert Sarvis, for "stealing" votes from the Republican candidate:
(2) Besides McAuliffe’s successful smear campaign, there’s something else that might be hurting Cuccinelli: the presence of Libertarian candidate Robert Sarvis in the race. Per Rasmussen, he’s garnering eight percent of the vote right now. In the scheme of things, of course, that’s not terribly impressive, but I suspect at least some of those voters could firmly be in Team Cuccinelli’s camp if and when he exited the race. Unfortunately, that's unlikely to happen.
How many times have we seen this? This insidious, pernicious perception and, let's not mince words, "Big Lie," must stop. We must tell these "experts" that politicians, especially from "mainstream, major parties," who run for office do not own the people's votes. These people are free to vote (and even not vote) for whomever they wish, aren't they? And many people might not even bother to become interested in an election until viable third party candidates were offered on the ballot. (I wonder: Do those "experts" have any empirical evidence to support their Big Lie?)
Thus, Robert Sarvis, as the Libertarian candidate, is not necessarily "stealing" votes from the Republican candidate, but he's creating new voter demand for himself. Besides, If Sarvis "stole" votes from the Republican, isn't it likely that he also "stole" votes from the Democrat? Robert Sarvis, at the end, is giving VA voters a real choice. ("A Real Choice," sounds like a good campaign slogan, doesn't it? Hey, "Change" worked for The Anointed One, didn't it?)
Still, how can Libertarian (and other third party) candidates get more voter demand for their campaigns, especially when the Demopublican controlled mainstream media gives these candidates so little (or even zero) coverage that it amounts to virtual blackouts, is a puzzle that's yet to be solved. Anyone have an answer? (To see how these candidates are unfairly denied places in "mainstream" political debates, see: http://www.cityandstateny.com/no-room-for-debate/)
Thanks for reading.