Alabama Megathread: Bombshell allegations

[Holmes]

New Gravis poll out soon.

I think this is winnable now for Jones.

Gravis actually didn't do bad in Virginia.

But it's still Gravis though.

[America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗]

I think that Alabama would elect a socially conservative, economically populist Democrat.  Tax those latte-sipping elites in Manhattan and Hollywood to death, redistribute the money back to my family so my kids can get better health care.

There needs to be a Democratic wing that appeals to Southern whites - you can reframe it all.  I would advise all Democratic candidates in the South to really run faith-based campaigns and talk about issues within an evangelical framework.  For example, Creation Care for environmental protection.

It's a very hard sell, but there were Democrats in the olden days in the South that were not completely bought by special interests.  They were more populist and pro-consumer, pro-worker.  They were able to win and hold onto seats but they were traditionalists.  A lot of them were also segregationists.

Sometimes a party needs to give up some things to get a little of what it wants.  An Alabama Democratic senator will have to vote against abortion all of the time and even be very vocal about being pro-life.  There are cultural positions to take- for example, supporting Christian symbols on public property.  I don't see why there should be any fuss about having Biblical passages or the Ten Commandments in a state house or a courthouse.  Just let it go.

Make the fuss when there's a tax bill that's deliberately written for the wealthy.  Very few people in rural Alabama are represented by that bill.  It's a bill that will help Beverly Hills and the Upper East Side, not Alabama.

Assuming Jones wins, I think it's very unlikely he'll be reelected as long as his opponent is a generic Republican and not someone like Moore. Jones is very pro-choice by the way.

[Holmes]

I think that Alabama would elect a socially conservative, economically populist Democrat.  Tax those latte-sipping elites in Manhattan and Hollywood to death, redistribute the money back to my family so my kids can get better health care.

There needs to be a Democratic wing that appeals to Southern whites - you can reframe it all.  I would advise all Democratic candidates in the South to really run faith-based campaigns and talk about issues within an evangelical framework.  For example, Creation Care for environmental protection.

It's a very hard sell, but there were Democrats in the olden days in the South that were not completely bought by special interests.  They were more populist and pro-consumer, pro-worker.  They were able to win and hold onto seats but they were traditionalists.  A lot of them were also segregationists.

Sometimes a party needs to give up some things to get a little of what it wants.  An Alabama Democratic senator will have to vote against abortion all of the time and even be very vocal about being pro-life.  There are cultural positions to take- for example, supporting Christian symbols on public property.  I don't see why there should be any fuss about having Biblical passages or the Ten Commandments in a state house or a courthouse.  Just let it go.

Make the fuss when there's a tax bill that's deliberately written for the wealthy.  Very few people in rural Alabama are represented by that bill.  It's a bill that will help Beverly Hills and the Upper East Side, not Alabama.

Assuming Jones wins, I think it's very unlikely he'll be reelected as long as his opponent is a generic Republican and not someone like Moore. Jones is very pro-choice by the way.

Probably, even if 2020 is a big Democratic year that takes Trump down, but Alabama Republicans can sh**t the bed again by having a nasty primary and endorsing the worst candidate.

[The Mikado]

I think that Alabama would elect a socially conservative, economically populist Democrat.  Tax those latte-sipping elites in Manhattan and Hollywood to death, redistribute the money back to my family so my kids can get better health care.

There needs to be a Democratic wing that appeals to Southern whites - you can reframe it all.  I would advise all Democratic candidates in the South to really run faith-based campaigns and talk about issues within an evangelical framework.  For example, Creation Care for environmental protection.

It's a very hard sell, but there were Democrats in the olden days in the South that were not completely bought by special interests.  They were more populist and pro-consumer, pro-worker.  They were able to win and hold onto seats but they were traditionalists.  A lot of them were also segregationists.

Sometimes a party needs to give up some things to get a little of what it wants.  An Alabama Democratic senator will have to vote against abortion all of the time and even be very vocal about being pro-life.  There are cultural positions to take- for example, supporting Christian symbols on public property.  I don't see why there should be any fuss about having Biblical passages or the Ten Commandments in a state house or a courthouse.  Just let it go.

Make the fuss when there's a tax bill that's deliberately written for the wealthy.  Very few people in rural Alabama are represented by that bill.  It's a bill that will help Beverly Hills and the Upper East Side, not Alabama.

Good luck running that sort of candidate ina state where 90% of local Dems are black and vote in primaries. There already is an Alabama Democratic Party and they aren't eager to be thrown under the bus (nor should they be).

[IceSpear]

I think that Alabama would elect a socially conservative, economically populist Democrat.  Tax those latte-sipping elites in Manhattan and Hollywood to death, redistribute the money back to my family so my kids can get better health care.

There needs to be a Democratic wing that appeals to Southern whites - you can reframe it all.  I would advise all Democratic candidates in the South to really run faith-based campaigns and talk about issues within an evangelical framework.  For example, Creation Care for environmental protection.

It's a very hard sell, but there were Democrats in the olden days in the South that were not completely bought by special interests.  They were more populist and pro-consumer, pro-worker.  They were able to win and hold onto seats but they were traditionalists.  A lot of them were also segregationists.

Sometimes a party needs to give up some things to get a little of what it wants.  An Alabama Democratic senator will have to vote against abortion all of the time and even be very vocal about being pro-life.  There are cultural positions to take- for example, supporting Christian symbols on public property.  I don't see why there should be any fuss about having Biblical passages or the Ten Commandments in a state house or a courthouse.  Just let it go.

Make the fuss when there's a tax bill that's deliberately written for the wealthy.  Very few people in rural Alabama are represented by that bill.  It's a bill that will help Beverly Hills and the Upper East Side, not Alabama.

Good luck running that sort of candidate ina state where 90% of local Dems are black and vote in primaries. There already is an Alabama Democratic Party and they aren't eager to be thrown under the bus (nor should they be).

Is there really? In 2014 Sessions ran unopposed, and for governor they nominated a former Republican right wing Conservadem.

[smoltchanov]

I think that Alabama would elect a socially conservative, economically populist Democrat.  Tax those latte-sipping elites in Manhattan and Hollywood to death, redistribute the money back to my family so my kids can get better health care.

There needs to be a Democratic wing that appeals to Southern whites - you can reframe it all.  I would advise all Democratic candidates in the South to really run faith-based campaigns and talk about issues within an evangelical framework.  For example, Creation Care for environmental protection.

It's a very hard sell, but there were Democrats in the olden days in the South that were not completely bought by special interests.  They were more populist and pro-consumer, pro-worker.  They were able to win and hold onto seats but they were traditionalists.  A lot of them were also segregationists.

Sometimes a party needs to give up some things to get a little of what it wants.  An Alabama Democratic senator will have to vote against abortion all of the time and even be very vocal about being pro-life.  There are cultural positions to take- for example, supporting Christian symbols on public property.  I don't see why there should be any fuss about having Biblical passages or the Ten Commandments in a state house or a courthouse.  Just let it go.

Make the fuss when there's a tax bill that's deliberately written for the wealthy.  Very few people in rural Alabama are represented by that bill.  It's a bill that will help Beverly Hills and the Upper East Side, not Alabama.

Good luck running that sort of candidate ina state where 90% of local Dems are black and vote in primaries. There already is an Alabama Democratic Party and they aren't eager to be thrown under the bus (nor should they be).

[sarcasm]The only problem is, that a candidates they (these 90% of local Dems) like, absolutely can't win general election outside of specially created VRA-protected districts. Other then that you are 100% correct[/sarcasm]

[Virginiá]

But as to changing the ballot at this late time, you Democrats did it in New Jersey in 2002.  What is good for Democrats is not ok for Republicans I guess.

I have less of a problem with this if the state explicitly has a procedure for a case where a candidate becomes grossly unacceptable. What is happening now is basically Republicans trying to change the rules right before an election.

1. Doug Jones - This guy has run a fine campaign, so because Republicans chose a monster who had a plethora of issues even before this latest one, Jones has to somehow find the money to wage a 2nd campaign against Republicans' new candidate? How the hell is that fair?

2. Afaik, Torricelli dropped out. Moore is not dropping out, at least so far. And I saw a brief comment on this on ELB, there was apparently some basic legal foundation for replacing the person on the ballot. But either way, the election was not postponed. Why should Alabama get to do that? If you want him out so bad, get him to drop out so state officials can replace his name on the ballot. I still think it's bs because AL state  law doesn't allow that, but its a lot better than moving the election back.

3. Politicians have scandals all the time during campaigns. We don't move elections for them. Why is this special - because it's such a huge one involving something so sensitive? Where do we do draw the line? What if in the future, another Republican has a much less serious scandal and the party wants to move the election for them to make sure they win with another candidate? Surely you can see why this is not a good thing.


The way I see it, Moore was a crappy person before the primary and he's way more crappy now. You guys are stuck with him. It's not our fault Alabama chose a sick person like him, and you shouldn't be allowed to just cancel elections when your candidate gets a huge scandal. I don't get why some Republicans are thinking the rules are different this time.

And it's not like there is not any recourse within the rules - Republicans can do a write-in campaign. It's been done successfully for a current Senator, so instead of changing the rules and literally moving the goalposts a month before the election, your party should get working on that.

[Rookie Yinzer]

I think that Alabama would elect a socially conservative, economically populist Democrat.  Tax those latte-sipping elites in Manhattan and Hollywood to death, redistribute the money back to my family so my kids can get better health care.

There needs to be a Democratic wing that appeals to Southern whites - you can reframe it all.  I would advise all Democratic candidates in the South to really run faith-based campaigns and talk about issues within an evangelical framework.  For example, Creation Care for environmental protection.

It's a very hard sell, but there were Democrats in the olden days in the South that were not completely bought by special interests.  They were more populist and pro-consumer, pro-worker.  They were able to win and hold onto seats but they were traditionalists.  A lot of them were also segregationists.

Sometimes a party needs to give up some things to get a little of what it wants.  An Alabama Democratic senator will have to vote against abortion all of the time and even be very vocal about being pro-life.  There are cultural positions to take- for example, supporting Christian symbols on public property.  I don't see why there should be any fuss about having Biblical passages or the Ten Commandments in a state house or a courthouse.  Just let it go.

Make the fuss when there's a tax bill that's deliberately written for the wealthy.  Very few people in rural Alabama are represented by that bill.  It's a bill that will help Beverly Hills and the Upper East Side, not Alabama.

Good luck running that sort of candidate ina state where 90% of local Dems are black and vote in primaries. There already is an Alabama Democratic Party and they aren't eager to be thrown under the bus (nor should they be).

Aside from the segregationist bit, which no Democrat regardless if they are a San Fran liberal or Alabama blue dog would openly be in 2017, there is no reason black Alabama voters wouldn't vote for the described candidate. Black Southerners are conservative, pro-life, and against same-sex marriage. And considering most of the black population in the state live in impoverished, rural areas I can see the economic populism resonating with them.

[RogueBeaver]

Ivey spox says she won't move the date.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Ivey spox says she won't move the date.

That's a good girl!

[GeorgiaModerate]

Ivey spox says she won't move the date.

Good for her.

[Oryxslayer]

Ivey spox says she won't move the date.

I had a feeling she wouldn't. Her moving the date originally from 2018 to 2017 suggested to me that she wouldn't stand for the Bentley-era corruption/shifty deals. This once again confirms it.

The Rep move from now appears to be letting Moore win, and then instantly expelling him form the senate, triggering another special election in 2018.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Ivey spox says she won't move the date.

That's a good girl!

Well that certainly wasn't a creepy post.

[Alabama_Indy10]

Ivey spox says she won't move the date.

That's a good girl!

Well that certainly wasn't a creepy post.

[GeorgiaModerate]

OK, take a look at today's front page of the Florence (AL) Times Daily: http://www.newseum.org/todaysfrontpages/?tfp_display=gallery&tfp_region=USA&tfp_sort_by=state&tfp_id=AL_TD

[RogueBeaver]

Other move is to pull the party endorsement, but there seems even less consideration for that idea.

[Kamala]

Ivey has been a no-nonsense Governor. Probably the best we could get with an R in Alabama .

[America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗]

OK, take a look at today's front page of the Florence (AL) Times Daily: http://www.newseum.org/todaysfrontpages/?tfp_display=gallery&tfp_region=USA&tfp_sort_by=state&tfp_id=AL_TD

"Party divided over sex clams"

[smoltchanov]

I think that Alabama would elect a socially conservative, economically populist Democrat.  Tax those latte-sipping elites in Manhattan and Hollywood to death, redistribute the money back to my family so my kids can get better health care.

There needs to be a Democratic wing that appeals to Southern whites - you can reframe it all.  I would advise all Democratic candidates in the South to really run faith-based campaigns and talk about issues within an evangelical framework.  For example, Creation Care for environmental protection.

It's a very hard sell, but there were Democrats in the olden days in the South that were not completely bought by special interests.  They were more populist and pro-consumer, pro-worker.  They were able to win and hold onto seats but they were traditionalists.  A lot of them were also segregationists.

Sometimes a party needs to give up some things to get a little of what it wants.  An Alabama Democratic senator will have to vote against abortion all of the time and even be very vocal about being pro-life.  There are cultural positions to take- for example, supporting Christian symbols on public property.  I don't see why there should be any fuss about having Biblical passages or the Ten Commandments in a state house or a courthouse.  Just let it go.

Make the fuss when there's a tax bill that's deliberately written for the wealthy.  Very few people in rural Alabama are represented by that bill.  It's a bill that will help Beverly Hills and the Upper East Side, not Alabama.

Good luck running that sort of candidate ina state where 90% of local Dems are black and vote in primaries. There already is an Alabama Democratic Party and they aren't eager to be thrown under the bus (nor should they be).

Aside from the segregationist bit, which no Democrat regardless if they are a San Fran liberal or Alabama blue dog would openly be in 2017, there is no reason black Alabama voters wouldn't vote for the described candidate. Black Southerners are conservative, pro-life, and against same-sex marriage. And considering most of the black population in the state live in impoverished, rural areas I can see the economic populism resonating with them.

First of all - fully agree. But i would add  (as usual) - let voters of each district decide! Of course - in many Black-majority districts even liberal candidates (though i agree with you that many Southern Blacks are substantially more conservative then Northern counterparts, and, may be - even then many white "national Democrats" from the North, on social issues) will have very good chances for election. Quite good! Their districts are ready to support such candidates, and no one is against. But there are enough districs of other type - non-mjority-minority, frequently - populist on economy, but very socially conservative. Why run "progressives" THERE? Of course, NOW, after dilligent "DINO-hunting" of more conservative Democrats by "activists" (which is very similar to "RINO-hunting" on Republican part), initially you will not find many willing candidates, and most of them would invariably lose. Most, but not all. It will take time (years, may be - decades) to regain trust of people from more conservative areas and convince them then elected Democrat may be reasonable, useful, and even "one of them" on many issues. But it's possible, and, most important, useful for Democrats itself, as these "few" conservative Democrats will still be substantially more reasonable then the ONLY alternative - ultra-right Republican "wingers".  It's so simple...

[GlobeSoc]

OK, take a look at today's front page of the Florence (AL) Times Daily: http://www.newseum.org/todaysfrontpages/?tfp_display=gallery&tfp_region=USA&tfp_sort_by=state&tfp_id=AL_TD

I don't get what's going on here.

[Crumpets]

OK, take a look at today's front page of the Florence (AL) Times Daily: http://www.newseum.org/todaysfrontpages/?tfp_display=gallery&tfp_region=USA&tfp_sort_by=state&tfp_id=AL_TD

"Party divided over sex clams"

Not to mention the poll on the side asking if Moore should "redraw" from the race...

...and the headline about the guy who had cocaine fall out of his hat while in court on a drug charge.

[Holmes]

OK, take a look at today's front page of the Florence (AL) Times Daily: http://www.newseum.org/todaysfrontpages/?tfp_display=gallery&tfp_region=USA&tfp_sort_by=state&tfp_id=AL_TD

"Party divided over sex clams"

Not to mention the poll on the side asking if Moore should "redraw" from the race...

...and the headline about the guy who had cocaine fall out of his hat while in court on a drug charge.

It's peak Alabama.

[Kamala]

https://twitter.com/marquardta/status/929429310510911490

@Greedo: this enough proof?

[Dr. Arch]

https://twitter.com/marquardta/status/929429310510911490

@Greedo: this enough proof?

I just threw up in my mouth a bit.

[mvd10]

Does Alabama have the death sentence for pedophiles or serial rapists? Or does that only apply to black people?