Robert Sarvis, who earned 6.5 percent of the vote as the Libertarian Party candidate for governor in the November 2012 election, has announced that he will seek the Virginia LP’s nomination for U.S. Senate in the upcoming election.
Appearing on Jan. 28 as a guest on the “Schmookler & Huffman Show” on 550 AM WSVA, Sarvis made a public declaration that he would seek candidacy.
“The Libertarian convention is Feb. 8 in Richmond, and I’ve recently told the Libertarian Party folks that I will be seeking their nomination,” Sarvis said.
Sarvis spoke for a few minutes about the difficult process of ballot qualification, a process that may have become a thing of the past if he’d received a few more percentage points in November’s election.
“Anybody who’s not a Republican or Democrat and already on the ballot has to get 10,000 signatures of valid Virginia voters, including 400 from each congressional district,” Sarvis said. “So that actually requires handing in at least 15,000, more like 17,000 to 18,000, to make sure that you actually get enough valid signatures. And it just takes a long time and a lot of resources. … That just kind of delays the start of the true campaigning.”
He also spoke briefly about his potential campaign platform.
“It’s a relatively new decision to go ahead and run, so I haven’t settled on the most important themes, but I think everybody recognizes the need to bring a lot of policy back home,” Sarvis said. “The federal government’s doing too much, it’s not doing it well, it’s arguably incompetent at a lot of these things, and we’re moving in the wrong direction on issue after issue. … Obviously, health care is going to be one. Ending the drug war, I made a big point of that at the state level, in the governor’s race. I’ll be doing that again in the federal race. We see a lot of movement at the state level.”
“paulie January 30, 2014 at 4:29 pm
Carl Person’s one time campaign manager, Tom Stevens, basically tricked Person into saying that he had no philosphical objection to making it legal and then made it sound like Person was trying to run on that issue when Person wanted to talk about economy and jobs, so Person fired Stevens. Stevens then did something similar with Sam Sloan, but Sloan’s “campaign” never got off the ground enough for it to matter.”
Sounds like the work of a saboteur / provocateur.
Stop. You had me at Tom Stevens.
Carl Person’s one time campaign manager, Tom Stevens, basically tricked Person into saying that he had no philosphical objection to making it legal and then made it sound like Person was trying to run on that issue when Person wanted to talk about economy and jobs, so Person fired Stevens. Stevens then did something similar with Sam Sloan, but Sloan’s “campaign” never got off the ground enough for it to matter.
Whose campaign was that?
That’s using the term “prez candidate” loosely, and there was, thankfully, no outside notice of that.
Of course it is wildly optimistic. But 6.5% in a hotly contested race where the momentum came together at the last minute, and it probably would have been 10% or more if not for the last minute smear campaign.
Last time there was no baseline of name recognition, donor/supporter database or media contacts to begin with and the campaign was very last minute. Most of the support came on board right at the very end. Now there is time to build off the existing baseline. The announcement was covered by many news outlets in VA and nationally that only covered Sarvis right at the end, if at all, last year. There will be many more news stories on all those and other outlets from now til the election. The support will build. There could come a point where we transcend the “wasted vote/can’t win” barrier, as happened with Ventura’s Gov run.
So I don’t think it is impossible.
Don’t fix what wasn’t broken. There are plenty of alternatives.
I’m disappointed in an article by Wendy McElroy today about jury nullification. Doed anyone want to join in on the discussion?
http://www.thedailybell.com/editorials/34982/Wendy-McElroy-Doubts-About-Jury-Nullification/#
A, always glad to help make the language crisper and more accurate!
“robert capozzi January 30, 2014 at 3:13 pm
‘a: this will also give him another chance to get a Libertarian message out to the public, some of whom will not hear it otherwise, and this is always a good thing.’
me: Always? Including the last cycle when a prez candidate’s campaign called for legalizing bestiality?”
The candidate in question who made that statement did not win the party’s nomination, and I doubt that many people even heard this statement.
I’ll rephrase the comment I made above by saying that it is always a good thing to run Libertarian Party candidates who get a good Libertarian message out to the public and who don’t make asses of themselves in the process.
a: this will also give him another chance to get a Libertarian message out to the public, some of whom will not hear it otherwise, and this is always a good thing.
me: Always? Including the last cycle when a prez candidate’s campaign called for legalizing bestiality?
“… monopoly government does not protect our rights 100% of the time, but an alternative has yet to be offered that can.”
Fixed that for ya, PF.
Paul said: “‘In a US Senate election, he’s almost guaranteed to lose.’
I this case, I can see enough momentum building where a win becomes plausible. If he manages to pull it off or even gets another good showing I would seriously consider him for the Presidential nomination should he agree to accept it. If he actually wins I think a Presidential run would definitely be in order.”
Winning a US Senate seat sounds wildly optimistic to me, but still, he does stand a good chance of bringing in another impressive vote total by minor party standards (he got around 6.5% of the vote last time), and this will also give him another chance to get a Libertarian message out to the public, some of whom will not hear it otherwise, and this is always a good thing.
“Nicholas Sarwark January 30, 2014 at 8:47 am
‘No, it would not be wildly off topic for a US Senate candidate. Why? Because the US Senate passes all kinds of bills which go on to become laws, and many of these laws violate individual rights. Many people get screwed over in the criminal justice system in this country because of laws passed by Congress. Jury nullification is a way for people to fight back against these bad laws.’
The Federal government passes many laws, but the vast majority of jury trials are in state or local courts. Jury nullification is more appropriately emphasized as a state issue than a Federal one. As we’ve seen with marijuana legalization, the Feds have to be dragged kicking and screaming into reality by the states. Real policy change is bottom up, not top down.”
Yes, it is true that more people get prosecuted under local and state laws than under federal laws, however, the fact remains that there are people who do get prosecuted under federal law as well, so the topic of jury nullification is certainly relevant to a US Senate candidate.
Really, the Libertarian Party ought to be far more vocal about the right of jury nullification than it is. Jury nullification should be one of the top issues for the party, and Libertarian Party candidates ought to use whatever media exposure and speaking engagements they get to mention this issue. Don’t like the drug laws? Jury nullification. Don’t like the gun control laws? Jury nullification? Don’t like taxes? Jury nullification. Etc…
Your original point, that running for other offices repeatedly hurts credibility is contravened by this example.
Note that Bernie Sanders never actually won anything — in the small state of Vermont no less — until he ran for mayor,. A mayoralty is an office with a small, manageable, *winnable* electorate. (Like a General Assembly seat.) It was only from there that he had earned enough credibility to win a higher office.
In the context of rea world politics it does not bother me. The limitation is the element that is generally missing at that table.
Within the context of philosophical or intra-party discussion I try to push the ball further down towards the realization that monopoly governent does not protect our rights.
Great point, Richard…thanks!
Bernie Sanders, the most successful U.S. politician to run outside the two major parties during the last twenty years, was not afraid to run for office repeatedly. In the spring of 1972 he ran as the Liberty Union Party nominee for US Senate. In November 1972 he ran for Governor. In 1974 he ran for US Senator. In 1976 he ran for Governor. In 1980 he ran as a candidate for presidential elector on the Socialist Workers ticket. In 1981 he ran for Mayor of Burlington, and won. There is nothing wrong with running for office multiple times; it builds experience and name recognition.
“Above all, he is cognizant of the need for balance between government power that protects our rights, and limitations on government power to protect our freedom.”
Troubling for NAPsolutists?
Me too. This was posted in https://www.facebook.com/groups/SupportersofRobertSarvisforU.S.Senate:
Robert Sarvis is at it again. He’s no spoiler, he’s for real! Robert Sarvis, 37, is a native of Virginia. He was born at Fairfax Hospital, grew up in West Springfield, and graduated from Thomas Jefferson High School for Science & Technology. He has earned degrees in mathematics from Harvard University and the University of Cambridge, a J.D. from N.Y.U. School of Law, and a Master’s in economics from George Mason University. He has a diverse professional background, with experience as an entrepreneur and small-business owner, a software engineer and mobile-app developer, a math teacher, and a lawyer. Rob is married to a pediatrician from Greenville, MS, with whom he is raising two beautiful children in Annandale, Virginia.
Rob is a great candidate for office because he believes in and cares deeply about other people. He isn’t satisfied by the self-serving platitudes offered by most politicians, and he is appalled at how far Republicans and Democrats have strayed from basic principles of good government. Rob wants to give Virginians a different option, based on open-minded, intelligent, economically literate leadership. He wants to bring Virginians together, not divide them with a culture war or a class war. He seeks to expand personal freedom by supporting marriage equality, restoring civil liberties, and embracing immigrants with open arms. And he seeks to expand economic freedom by offering tax relief, freeing up workers and job creators from needless regulation, and putting parents in control of the money spent on their children’s education. Rob truly understands the government’s fiduciary duties toward its citizens.
Robert Sarvis is also the best choice to represent the increasingly diverse population of Virginia. He is mixed-race (half-Chinese) and open-minded. He is well-educated and technologically savvy. He has worked in the public and private sectors, adopting the entrepreneurial mindset of fast-paced industries, and witnessing the glacial process of government and legal work. He knows what it’s like to be laid off, and he knows what it’s like to start a business. He has mentored elementary and high school students and has worked on pro bono legal cases involving battered women and asylum seekers. Above all, he is cognizant of the need for balance between government power that protects our rights, and limitations on government power to protect our freedom.
Now is the time to take a chance on a candidate who is not beholden to the two major parties. Stand up for Freedom and Equality. Join Rob’s campaign today.
*This is a supporters’ page, not with the official campaign
Exactly.
That’s a ridiculous statement. Run early and often!
And will boost his chances more by raising his name recognition and donor/supporter database with this run.
I this case, I can see enough momentum building where a win becomes plausible. If he manages to pull it off or even gets another good showing I would seriously consider him for the Presidential nomination should he agree to accept it. If he actually wins I think a Presidential run would definitely be in order.
Nonsense.
If we were strictly running to win and nothing else, maybe. But Libertarian campaigns serve multiple purposes; the possibility of actually winning is only one of them, and there are a number of others.
Of course there will be. Slapping trolls is fun though 🙂
I’ve found people do care about jury rights when they learn about it.
Yes, it would.
Good point.
Exactly!
Yes. Yes it is.
NS…
ND, yes, though, except for economic issues, where most change is at the national level, mostly in the direction of force vs peace.
The Federal government passes many laws, but the vast majority of jury trials are in state or local courts. Jury nullification is more appropriately emphasized as a state issue than a Federal one. As we’ve seen with marijuana legalization, the Feds have to be dragged kicking and screaming into reality by the states. Real policy change is bottom up, not top down.
I am glad Rob Sarvis will be running again as a Libertarian and I will be supporting him.
“Electoral Watch January 30, 2014 at 1:10 am
(PS. Jury nullification would be wildly offtopic for a US Senate campaign.)”
No, it would not be wildly off topic for a US Senate candidate. Why? Because the US Senate passes all kinds of bills which go on to become laws, and many of these laws violate individual rights. Many people get screwed over in the criminal justice system in this country because of laws passed by Congress. Jury nullification is a way for people to fight back against these bad laws.
I think that Libertarian candidates ought to provide people with solutions that go beyond, “Vote for me, and once in office I’ll fix everything,” especially when one considers that Libertarians rarely get elected to anything.
“Matt Cholko January 30, 2014 at 12:59 am
The ‘problem’ with talking about those two issues is that the general public just doesn’t care about either one.”
A lot of libertarians said this for years about the Federal Reserve System, but Ron Paul talked about it a lot, and as a result, he educated people about this issue and this caused them to care about it. Now a lot more people understand what the Federal Reserve is and why it should be abolished.
The same thing could happen with other important issues which are not being addressed by the mainstream Democrats and Republicans, like jury nullification and making elections more fair.
Sarvis ran a decent gubernatorial campaign, but he risks becoming a perennial joke candidate by immediately running for a different office. First he wanted to serve in the state government, but now all of the sudden he’s interested in federal office?
Sarvis (and the LP) would be better off if he sat it out this year and ran a credible campaign for the state’s General Assembly in 2015. He might actually win a seat there. In a US Senate election, he’s almost guaranteed to lose.
Another loss will hinder his credibility in any other future campaign. An Assembly seat would only help.
(PS. Jury nullification would be wildly offtopic for a US Senate campaign.)
I’m glad he’s running, but I expect that he’ll have attacks from Republicans all through his campaign.
The “problem” with talking about those two issues is that the general public just doesn’t care about either one.
“Richard Winger January 30, 2014 at 12:20 am
I hope Rob educates the Virginia press and pundits that the Commonwealth needs to think about implementing ranked-choice (instant-runoff) voting.”
It would also be nice if he used the campaign to educate the public about the right of jury nullification of victimless crimes.
I hope Rob educates the Virginia press and pundits that the Commonwealth needs to think about implementing ranked-choice (instant-runoff) voting. That will be the perfect response to the people who like to use the ugly term “spoiler.” And more of us should join Fairvote and other groups that work for ranked choice voting.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/SupportersofRobertSarvisforU.S.Senate
My only concern is that I’ve seen a lot of cases where a candidate does well, gets confident, runs again for the same office or a different office, and does far worse. LP activists need to get out front of the spin & work toward growing Mr. Sarvis’ support. Don’t just assume that because he did well last time he’ll do as well or better this time.
I hope he continues to run a left libertarian campaign.
I am so sick of people telling us we are Republican-lites and Rob’s last campaign showed what a canard that claim is.
This is great news!
Slapping around some NSGOP trolls on FB already 🙂
https://www.facebook.com/libertarians/posts/10152181163787250?stream_ref=10
Bravo! Go for it!