Cancer vs. heart attack is how one Virginian described the gubernatorial choice.

[No Elephants]

So said Monday's Daily Show.

Third Way Democrat McAuliffe, charged with several questionable activities, vs. rabidly anti-choice (even the pill) Cucinelli.

Yet, about $50 million was spent on the gubernatorial race alone. (AG, to fill Cucinelli's vacancy, was also hotly contested.)


$50 million. You have to ask yourself, why is the office that valuable? Why is there money for everything in the US, except food, shelter and medical care for the desperate?


Both Bill and Hillary campaigned for McAuliffe, even though he was Hillary's primary campaign manager in 2008, when she seemed clueless about the "Texas Two Step" primary process, among other things, and, despite having a lot of money, her campaign ran up embarrassing debts that Obama had to help her pay off.

Obama and Biden also campaigned for McCauliffe, making it the Democratic Party political equivalent of four aces. (Had Michelle Obama campaigned for McAuliffe, too, it would have been a royal flush, but no flush jokes, please.)

(None of the above campaigned for Christie's Democratic opponent, who really could have used the help. What? Maybe Democrats will regret this come 2016?)

Apparently, the election was won largely on the basis of reproductive choice, even though that is ulitimately a constitutional matter for the courts and even Cucinelli can do only so much about it, no matter what his rhetoric is.

Wouldn't it be great if choice and equal marriage rights (aka religious issues) were not the main differences between Democrats and Republicans anymore?


P.S. Almost forgot a very critical point: Virginia also had a Libertarian candidate who may have made the critical difference in the outcome of the race, even though McAuliffe outspent KC by about $15 million, an unprecedented difference in this race. (Polls consistently showed the Libertarian drawing votes from Cucinelli. Think Ross Perot and Poppy v. Bubba in 1992.) As of now, McAuliffe seems to be a winner by only about 2%, while Libertarian Sarvis seems likely to finish with about 6% of the vote. So, did the very expensive Virginia gubernatorial race really go blue or red?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/11/05/mcauliffe-virginia-governor-cuccinelli-results/3444529/

But, this will not receive much official mention from anyone in media or from the candidates, even the loser. Neither Democrats nor Republicans want us to realize that third party votes can matter a lot, even if the third party candidate loses by a lot. One problem is that right leaning folks who voted for the Libertarian may be regretting their votes in the morning more than those who voted Democrat or Republican. (Or, they may see their votes as a long term investment in changing their party, Quien sabe?)

As for Democrats, they seem generally less likely to vote third party, at least since Florida 2000. Usually, they say they can't bear to risk a Republican victory--even if there is no way their vote can affect the outcome. However, I saw one Dem poster from New Jersey claim that he was about to vote third party, but felt he absolutely HAD to vote Dem in this election or the Dem candidate might not get any votes at all!

:crazy:



(Gag. McAuliffe now praising KC.)



The Democrat won the Lt. Gov race too, but, as of right now, the important AG position that Cucinelli held (and, IMO, abused) seems to be still too close to call as I type.