The Richmond Times-Dispatch has a lengthy editorial about its recommendation for the Virginia gubernatorial race. The editorial is strongly critical of both major party nominees, and says it won’t endorse Rob Sarvis, the Libertarian, because he doesn’t have enough experience. It does, however, say that a vote on principle is not a wasted vote, which seems to be a faint hint that if the paper had endorsed anyone, it would have been Sarvis.
On October 20, Professor Larry Sabato, considered the leading expert on Virginia politics, tweeted that he has been observing Virginia gubernatorial elections since 1965, and he has never seen so much unhappiness with the two major party nominees. Thanks to Eric Garris for the news about the Sabato tweet, and to PoliticalWire for the link to the editorial.
UPDATE: on October 21, the Charlottesville Daily Progress endorsed a write-in vote for Bill Bolling for Governor. Bolling is the current Republican Lieutenant Governor, but he is not a candidate. Furthermore, although Virginia counts write-in votes for declared write-in presidential candidates, it doesn’t canvass the number of votes for write-in candidates for other office, unless the vote-counting equipment suggests that a write-in candidate might have won the election. The editorial does say, “A substantial vote for the Libertarian candidate (Rob Sarvis) also might serve to push the major parties into reform.”
FURTHER UPDATE: two weeks ago, a community forum for all three ballot-listed gubernatorial candidates was arranged in Richmond, so that is one venue at which Rob Sarvis will appear jointly with Ken Cuccinelli and Terry McAuliffe. The event is Saturday, October 26, between noon and 2 p.m. at the Virginia War Memorial Building in Richmond. The event is sponsored by Radio One and Channel 8 News.
“Still, a vote for him would not be wasted but would serve notice to Republicans and Democrats that the electorate rejects their surly antics. Citizens whose votes reflect their ideals do not throw away their ballots.”
That seems more like a subtle endorsement, despite their criticism of his lack of experience in other portions of the article.
It’s like they’re they’re saying, we won’t endorse him but we wouldn’t mind if you voted for him either.
Why was None of the Above not invited to participate in the debates? NOTA should be therer if for no other reason than NOTA’s responses are typically very brief and not at all politically nuanced. You always know where NOTA doesn’t stand.
Sarvis has as much experience in public office as Terry McAuliffe, at least.
There are many individuals who have been elected Governor of various states, and who had not served in any other public office. When Ronald Reagan was elected Governor of California in 1966, he not only had not served in any other public office, he knew very little about the details of California state government. Assemblyman Charles Conrad, a friend if his, coached him after the election was over for a solid month at Conrad’s ranch.
What are the chances of Sarvis appearing at the Oct 24 final debate?
Getting better. Some chicken and duck customed folks need to start showing up wherever Coochienelli shows his weasel mug in public between now and then. The TV station and McAuliffe both say they want the debate. Ask them to have it with or without Coochie. And a new forum with all 3 has been scheduled. Also to be televised and radio broadcasted.
Gov. Johnson had not held political before becoming Governor of New Mexico.