That douchebag Warner is going to lose?

I have no doubt in my mind that Warner has his seat for life.

When the best opposition we can mount is a choice between Team Jesus (Shak Hill) and the Chamber of Commerce Amnesty Cheerleading Squad (Ed Gillespie), yes, I do think Warner has his seat for life.  I'll still vote for Gillespie, but only because I hate Harry Reid so much.

Whoever wins the "civil war" raging in the Republican party right now, it is unlikely to result in any real electoral success in the near term.  Both the "conservatives" and the "establishment" are wrong in many regards.  

If we ever want to win again, we need a Republican party that is secular but not hostile to religion.  It must recognize that public opinion on gay marriage is already largely in favor of allowing gay marriage, and its a one-way street.  The number of people in this country who oppose gay marriage will always be less tomorrow than today, and there is no way to reverse that trend.  We must abandon efforts to restrict certain types of birth control, and focus any anti-abortion efforts solely on late-term elective abortions.  This isn't what religious conservatives want to hear - but it is the simple political reality of where this country is today.

If we ever want to win again, we need a Republican party that supports the free market but not crony capitalism.  We must be able to articulate why Democrat and big government policies make life worse for everybody - not just business owners and entrepreneurs.  We must be able to connect with ordinary middle class and even poor people and explain why radical environmentalism, open borders, quantitative easing, corporate welfare, and a burdensome regulatory and tax climate negatively affect every aspect of their lives - from the price of gas to the price of groceries to the ability to compete and find work in this country.

Of course, don't expect either of these to happen soon.  The Republican party depends on Team Jesus to show up at the polls and on the Chamber of Commerce and crony capitalists for campaign cash.

There's no question that Warner will win, but it's important to at least keep his percentages down. That's why I'm voting for Gillespie.

You hit the nail on the head, Bro.
But be careful about saying stuff like this here on the VAHTF. I said something similar last year when the extremists in our party forced Cuccinelli on us, and as a result we ended up with liberal Democrats in all 3 statewide offices. You would have thought that I was advocating cooking and eating babies, the way some of the guys here reacted.

I appreciate the comment but I'm not sure I would label every Cuccinelli supporter as an "extremist".  Did Cuccinelli have some views on social issues that were "extreme" compared to the views of a majority of the electorate?  Absolutely.  But I think there were plenty of people who backed Cuccinelli because they saw Bolling as too soft or too liberal on fiscal issues.  I don't blame anyone who thought Cuccinelli was a better choice than Bolling for those reasons - I think the ideal candidate is someone who can combine the pragmatic viewpoint on gay marriage and abortion/birth control with the hard-line Cuccinelli approach to fiscal issues, immigration, etc.

Public opinion on homosexuality has not changed as you make it out to be.  States have constitutionalized the definition of marriage all across America, and its radical liberal judges in black robes by Obama who are over turning the will of the people.  

But the MSM would have you believe otherwise....

I could honestly care less about gays, what I care about is Mark Warner not taking Obama's dick out of his mouth every since becoming Senator. The only reason that piece of shit voted against the AWB was because it was already known it was going to fail. Also voted for zerocare.

I think Cooch would have been a decent Gov. Far better than the piece of shit we have now.

Mark Warner is an Elitist Douche. My vote won't be so much for the other guy, but against the POS Warner.

Hey... isn't Sarvis running for senator?  That turned out great last time.

Sarvis will have little affect on Warner's landslide win. Too many of the big population centers are ball gargling Democrat strongholds now.

No one said anything about Sarvis.  Frankly I wasn't aware he was running but I was never going to vote for him anyway.  I was simply trying to point out some of the major reasons why large portions of the electorate won't even consider voting for someone with an R next to their name.

I wish Cooch had won, he would have been an outstanding replacement for Timmah in 4 more years. McDonnell was slated to be the Senate candidate this time around and could have likely won, but he screwed that up.

Warner is in for life, and even though he claims to be a moderate he is so far up zeros ass he can probably see what driver the CinC is using on the greens. Kaine is the more likely of the 2 to get voted out.

Ed Gillespie is not what Virginia needs......Another Yankee-born (NJ) career politician. May as well keep the mid-western born career politician we have.

Face it kids... we have become a fuckin' blue state.  Worse yet, there is nothing on the horizon to reverse that course.

I agree that we have become a "blue" state as the terms "red" and "blue" are defined right now.  But there are plenty of ways of reversing that - they simply require a thoughtful analysis of the reasons why Virginia voters tend to prefer "blue" candidates over "red" ones and a willingness to stop fighting for lost causes that don't really matter (talking specifically about gay marriage here).  You can't get people to vote for you until you address the reasons why they won't even consider voting for you.

I know dozens of people just within my circle of friends who have no problem with guns and recognize that the welfare state is a failure, but they won't even consider voting Republican because of gay marriage and abortion.  That's it.  Win those people over and you win the state, provided that the "values voters" in the rest of the state are willing to support a candidate who isn't Team Jesus.  Values voters need to decide whether they want communism or a more libertarian form of government - Team Jesus simply isn't a winnable option in Virginia these days.

Good post, well put. I think you and I disagree on Cuccinelli, a man I never trusted ever since he made the news as AG with his effort to alter the state seal to cover up the naked breast. I looked at that election as the battle between the Putz and the Yutz, and the state would suffer no matter who won. I despised Cooch and Little Timmy equally so there was no good choice in that election.



Warner got in because, once again, the VA Republican party is run by Team Shortbus; a group of individuals so detached from reality that they ran the same individual who lost the same seat to Webb the time before. Apparently Team Shortbus was counting on the electorate forgetting that George Allen ran a horrible campaign, never missed an opportunity to put his foot in his mouth, and repeatedly vapor locked in front of the camera. Geoge came through once again, ran a terrible campaign and managed to destroy any chance we had of taking that seat.



As long as the VA Republican party cuts the majority of us out of the process by sticking to a convention selection process vice a primary, we will remain in the wilderness and Warner will own that seat, as will Little Timmy.

So, according to you, some people have to give up their principles and accept those of others in order to be more tolerant and/or electable?  I'm not trying to pick a fight here, but doesn't that kind of counter your exact argument?

FWIW, I just saw an ad for Warner on TV at the gym.  The ad claims that Warner is the most bipartisan Senator in Washington.  

Yeah. Go ahead and stick with your principles. You principled guys did that in the last couple of elections, and look what you've brought us: Two democrat senators and all three statewide offices held by democrats.
But by God you stuck with your principles! I hope you're proud of what you've done.

You missed the point entirely.   We can agree that we don't agree.

When the result of losing is more democrats in office, and the real possibility of losing more of our gun rights, you're God damn right winning is more important.

If you're not seeing much of a difference, then you're not looking very hard.

No offense taken; I understand why you say what you do.  I'm not sure why you say it would undermine the rest of my argument, but I think you're right that I am saying that the "values voters" have to give up on some of their principles (abortion and gay marriage).  I don't think it's useful to get into a debate over the specifics of those two issues or why I believe what I do vs. why you believe what you do when it comes to those two issues - I am simply trying to state the cold, hard political reality of where our state (and perhaps the nation as well) are right now.  You can disagree with my assessment if you like, but I believe the results of recent statewide elections and the way that the campaigns were run strongly suggests that a hardcore social conservative can no longer win statewide office in 2014 or beyond.  I believe that there are only two possible outcomes in terms of who can actually win statewide office in Virginia in 2014 and beyond - a Communist, or a more libertarian-leaning Republican.  Take your pick.  I'm not saying you have to like it, or that the "values voters" are necessarily right or wrong in their viewpoint.  I'm just telling you what your choices really are.

I second this.  If not for Rand Paul and Ted Cruz making a stand on filibustering Harry Reid's gun control package, how many Senate Republicans would have gone along?  I bet a lot more than just McCain, Collins, Kirk, and Toomey.

For those saying that we should give in with regard to some of our principles, should we give in to some small gun control too? I mean a small amount (40 million babies) of murder is acceptable right? Why should anyone defend those that can't defend themselves? The problem is our culture or lack of proper ordering. Just because something isn't popular does not mean you should accept it. What if gun control became even more popular with the general public would your principles change? I don't wish to start an abortion thread at all I'm just making a point that if you have an issue that effects your conscience then you should vote accordingly no matter what the outcome.

Not really, but I won't vote for him.  Trouble is that once again the Republicans are running a shitty, completely uninspiring, milquetoast candidate... at least I think they are, but that's only a rumor since there's no evidence of a campaign going on at all, and with the election 6 weeks away.

From a purely theoretical standpoint, I can't argue with you.  If you believe strongly that abortion and gay marriage are wrong, then you should vote your conscience.  Your vote belongs to you and you alone and neither I nor anyone else has a right to tell you how to use it. But I can tell you what the most likely outcome is when you go in and pull the lever for a hardcore social conservative.  You're flipping a coin and betting it's going to land on its side.  You're going to lose, and a communist is going to win.  

I don't particularly care about abortion and I think that government shouldn't endorse or recognize any marriages (whether heterosexual or homosexual), so it's easy for me to say that we should compromise on those issues.  However, I do think there is a practical difference between compromising on the abortion/gay marriage issue and the gun issue.  Very few people go to the polls to vote for more gun control, even if they believe gun control is a good idea.  But plenty of people will go to the polls to vote on the abortion and gay marriage issues if they feel that those are threatened.