How could the Cooch have lost with all those red counties?
Here's a gem
which I stumbled upon by anti-choice pest and Professor of American Democracy at Wingnut University, Steve Jalsevac, via Slate: Ken Cuccinelli Probably Won in Virginia Because Maps
It's a map showing the results of the voting in Tuesday's Virginia election for governor. All the solid red areas voted a majority for Cuccinelli. The small Dark blue ares went Terry McAuliffe (Yes, I know those are the most densely populated areas of Virginia). The rest were mixed.
Okay, so we start off with the author conceding the fact that population is not evenly-distributed. Though it would really be more of a blurb than an article, it should have just stopped right here. Naturally, this means that we're going to redline it up the onramp onto the cognitive dissonance freeway:
Notice that the map seems to be almost solid red. And yet, Ken Cuccinelli somehow very narrowly lost to his Democrat opponent. To me, something smells about all this and I suspect Ken Cuccinelli actually won Virginia, but certain things happened to ensure that that would not be the official result.
There is a perfectly rational explanation for why the Democratic candidate won, even though the Republican won more counties, so of course we're going to ignore it and theorize a conspiracy! But wait, Steve Jalsevac is no conspiracy nut, because "I would much rather make logicial conclusions about obviously suspect circumstances."
And those logical conclusions are?
Meanwhile in Virginia...
Hi, this is my first diary. I'm a 31 year-old native son of Virginia (who now lives in Kentucky), so, naturally, I was following the VA governor's race with considerable interest. Congratulations, by the way, to Virginia for (however narrowly) not making a huge mistake last night.
You didn't need to be a Nostradumbass to predict that Cooch was going to screw the pooch, nor was clairvoyance necessary to correctly predict the main direction in which the gnarled, trembling fingers of Republican blame were going to point as the dust settled: Libertarian candidate Robert Sarvis. Sure enough, one need only look at any discussion thread on any conservative site on any article about the Cooch's defeat to see plenty of examples of teabaggers blaming the Libertarian for splitting the conservative vote. I mean, the alternative is accepting that the latest large-scale repudiation of the authoritarian Tea Party agenda is just confirming an established trend, but we all know that there's no room in the echo chamber for that kind of epiphany.
But, is that really how it happened?