Alabama Megathread: Bombshell allegations

[smoltchanov]

The Luther Burger vs. Mediocre Mo vs. Religious Radical Roy: Senate Race of the Century

Well, it's Alabama after all. As of late - one of the most conservative states of USA... With Deep Southern heritage and not enough Blacks (compared with Mississippi and Louisiana) it will be Republican stronghold for decades.

[smoltchanov]

If I were the Jones campaign, I'd try to quietly contact as many Hillary voters as I can, and try to increase black turnout as much as possible, perhaps through church networks. Winning over Republicans is a fool's errand.

Not enough democrats in the state to win based on that alone.

+100. Slightly less then 160.000 people voted in Democratic primary, about 410.000 - in Republican. Times when Democrats could win on their own, and primaries (if any) were more then 10:1 Democratic, are long gone...

[smoltchanov]

If I were the Jones campaign, I'd try to quietly contact as many Hillary voters as I can, and try to increase black turnout as much as possible, perhaps through church networks. Winning over Republicans is a fool's errand.

Not enough democrats in the state to win based on that alone.

This logic would have doomed Scott Brown in 2010. He won because a ridiculous number of Dems stayed home while he romped among Indies.

Not saying I'd bet against Moore, but that route exists. Recall that Dems won MS-1, AL-2, and AL-5 in living memory amid terrible conditions for Republicans.

With about 160.000 people taking part in Democratic primary, and about 410.000 - in Republican Democrats need either to romp among Indies, which are (mostly) not especially liberal in Alabama AFAIK, or to get more then 30% of Republican primary electorate, which is very conservative (and Jones is NOT a conservative). Both seem to be unlikely... Childers, Bright and Griffith were conservatives (at least - of moderate variety) and could get much more of conservative vote.

[smoltchanov]

http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2017/08/roy_moore_gets_endorsements_fr.html#incart_river_index

Roy Moore gets endorsements from 14 state lawmakers.

I bet - some of them are even to the right of him...

[smoltchanov]

http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2017/08/roy_moore_gets_endorsements_fr.html#incart_river_index

Roy Moore gets endorsements from 14 state lawmakers.

I bet - some of them are even to the right of him...

Ed Henry is possibly to his right, but his rhetoric isn't anywhere near Moore's. Hard to sound more extreme than Moore.

And Lynn Greer, IIRC, is a former Democratic congressional candidate...

[smoltchanov]

The best result for Democratic candidate in Alabama's Senate elections since Shelby's switch was in 1996, when Roger Bedford got about 45.5% in open race (against Sessions, BTW). I doubt that Jones will be able to surpass this result, but, at least, hope for 40+%

[smoltchanov]

Expect about 60-40 Moore win in December. Even that would be relatively good result for Jones in present day Alabama, where Democratic candidates seldom pass 40% mark because of ultrapolarized racial voting..... 45 would be excellent, but, alas, unlikely...

[smoltchanov]

Going forward, us non-alabamans that will be tracking this race need to remember that Roy Moore's views are not extreme within the prism of the alabama electorate.

That's true. Though these "views of Alabama electorate" are close to extreme by national standards..

[smoltchanov]

It's not like he's been shy about his being pro choice on his website. Tbh, this election was never about Jones somehow winning over mythical Alabama swing voters. It's all about turnout in a December off year election. The only way Jones wins is if dems turn out and republicans stay home. Maybe being strongly pro choice will be a motivating factor for AL dems.

I haven't seen polling of Alabama on Abortion, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's like Louisiana, where even the state democratic establishment is well to the right of the national democratic platform.

Not only "to the right" in Louisiana... There are lots of absolutely pro-life (100% according to Louisiana Right to Life) elected Democrats there, and virtually no one - 100% pro-choice. IMHO, situation is slightly better for choice supporters in Alabama, but only slightly... Patricia Todd is the only one among white Democratic legislators in Alabama, who may be pro-choice (and part of Black legislators will be pro-life too)...

[smoltchanov]

It's not like he's been shy about his being pro choice on his website. Tbh, this election was never about Jones somehow winning over mythical Alabama swing voters. It's all about turnout in a December off year election. The only way Jones wins is if dems turn out and republicans stay home. Maybe being strongly pro choice will be a motivating factor for AL dems.

I haven't seen polling of Alabama on Abortion, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's like Louisiana, where even the state democratic establishment is well to the right of the national democratic platform.

I don't know much about it either, but let me just put it this way. Terri Sewell is also pro choice and so was Artur Davis when he had AL's democratic seat. So was Obama when he was running for president.

They're also black Democrats who represent a 61% black district.

+100. VRA-preserved district is one thing, statewide election - quite another....

[smoltchanov]

The obvious problem here is that abortion is a big turnout driver for the type of evangelical nutjobs that make up Moore's base while not doing much for Alabama Democrats (I'd guess).

Again - +100

[smoltchanov]

I guess I just don't see how this is some big game changer. He was asked a question and gave an answer. Maybe he would have said something else if he had time to think about it more, I don't know. I have a hard time imagining that die hard pro lifers were going to go out and check the dem box. Even if Jones was ambivalent or didn't say anything, there would be the assumption that he's pro choice just because he's a democrat. Even if he was pro life, he could still be attacked for defending Obamacare or wanting more welfare programs. And it's not like being pro life is this great boon for AL dems either. Parker Griffith was pro life and some good that did him in the 2014 gubernatorial race. He got like 400k votes.

Because he was running against a (at that time) popular incumbent governor in a very pro Republican year.

+1. Abortion issue isn't everything, but it's an important factor in close races. In Alabama it's beneficial (electorally) to be as pro-life as possible, in, say, Vermont - vice versa.

[smoltchanov]

Even if the poll was accurate the unsure voters are going to Moore.

Jones needs to be leading with over 50 to win. A tie is a Moore winning poll, especially one with a trump approval at +1

+1. Jones will get one of the best percentages for a Democrat in Alabama since 1994, but Moore will still win (sadly).... May be, if Democratic candidate would be pro-life and thus get better percentage of crossover vote - .....

[smoltchanov]

Whether we like it or not, Roy Moore will win by double digits (between 10 and 20 imo). This sexual accusation wave is very similar to what happened with Donald Trump in Mid-October, several establishment Republicans came out against him (and then came back to him before election day lol), if the Republicans find a way to disprove this it'll help him even more. I'm not sure why people think all of these establishment figures coming out against Trump Roy Moore will hurt him, it won't.

Yup. lol @ the people in this thread thinking Alabamans would vote for a Democrat over a child molester. I've been saying for months now that Moore could hold a Klan rally or molest someone on live tv and he'd have a 100% shot at winning.

Sadly, but i tend to agree. Even relatively conservative Democrat now rarely suits these people (most Alabama Republicans). Pro-choice candidate (like Jones) with "D" after his name is absolutely worse for them then "simple" sexual predator with "R" and ultra-right following... It was the same 50-60 years ago with Civil Rights  (you only needed to say "this candidate seeks Black vote", and he was essentially doomed at polls, even if an opponent was WCC member or KKK supporter), now it's repeated with "social issues". Alabamians lerned er-r-r.... very little.

[smoltchanov]

This will totally energize Moore’s base and he’ll win by an even bigger margin than before now. Liberals have been cucked yet again.

That's exactly the reason i wouldn't like to have anything in common with such "base" (party notwithstanding). In short - i absolutely disdain it. And begin to agree with Clinton's words about "deplorables"......

[smoltchanov]

I face a bunch of assassins .

You are probably right about my dinner with a black pastor.

But you ignore my statement on changes in my church.  That's is a big deal for a southern church.  My actions will probably lose me some friends and get me some critics. You should encourage that and not criticize it.  We have a liberal Never Trumper pastor. He wants to bring in black members.  I do not believe he can do it.  We need a black pastor to do it I believe.  I am willing to try.

I accept that you have good intentions. But - first, not everything depends on your goodwill, as you yourself admit. And, second, there is an old proverb about where "good intentions" frequently lead. Sad, but often - true.

[smoltchanov]

^ So - pedophile is still better then Democrat?

[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]

[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...