Skip to main content

Breibart with yet another "winner"

The other day I blogged about Breitbart distorting the story about the Longshoremen's union disaffiliating with the AFL-CIO, and the impact that had on the conservative/libertarian blogging world.

The point:  if you want to win hearts and minds to your cause, in the long term an actual respect for truth and factual accuracy are, you know, kind of important.

So here's today's totally off-base and misleading headline from Breibart:

LIBERTARIAN WITH LITTLE MONEY COULD SPOIL CUCCINELLI CAMPAIGN
This is referring to the Virginia governor's race between unlikeable candidates Terry McAuliffe (D) and Ken Cuccinelli (R), where Libertarian Robert Sarvis has managed to spend only $40K (compared to their millions) and has garnered 9-10% support in recent polling.

Here's what Breitbart says (possibly parroting the Virginia-Union, but with Breitbart who can tell?):
Two months before the election, Sarvis may be the only man who is not a member of the under-performing Cuccinelli campaign team standing in the way of a possible comeback victory for the Republican. 
Uh, guys, OK Cuccinelli trails McAuliffe by about 7 points in the polls, and, yes, Sarvis is getting about 9%.

But the poll breakdown indicates Sarvis is pulling 5% from Cuccinelli and 4% from McAuliffe.

In other words, well within the margin for error, Sarvis is drawing almost equally from the voter base of both candidates, with only a slight bias toward pulling votes from the Republican.

What's spoiling Ken Cuccinelli's campaign is that he is an idiot running against a crook, and more people would prefer a competent crook in office.

What Robert Sarvis is indicative of is that the voter percentage completely turned off by both parties is now legitimately edging into double digits.

Libertarians have now become the new GOP excuse for losing.

Which I'm good with.

Comments

Patt P. said…
Thanks for sharing this information. Incall girls

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...