Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2017 9:42:50 GMT -5
Gaah, I'm in for another heinous work day, made worse by my obsessive following of the Alabama race every spare minute yesterday. But I had to share this bit of amusement.
Someone started a twitter account for Roy's poor horse, Sassy (I say "poor" because based on the video, Roy is a shitty rider who constantly yanks back Sassy's head.)
In one day, it garnered over 16,000 followers.
As far as the write-ins go, I don't think that reflects that Doug is a bad candidate (I think he's a good one). I think it reflects that Alabama is a deep red state where most people vote Republican almost as a matter of religion. Even when the candidate was a as difficult to swallow as Moore, a goodly number couldn't bring themselves to pull that blue lever. But, thankfully, a noteworthy percentage also couldn't bring themselves to vote Moore -- hence the write-ins. I'd be willing to bet that every single one was cast by a loyal Republican who just couldn't stomach Moore.
Another thing that tickled me -- remember my fave neverTrump conservative, Rick Wilson, he of the devastating Carter Page article I posted a while back? He's a long-time Republican strategist -- and he helped put together the advertising campaign for Doug Jones. (I've no doubt it helped reach independents and wavering Republicans with a sense of decency.)
Also noteworthy -- black voters came out in droves for this one, and voted overwhelmingly for Jones. (98% of black women voted Jones.) Huge factor in this win.
We have a Democratic senator in Alabama. Hell has icicles on its eaves.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Dec 13, 2017 12:15:33 GMT -5
I'm hoping this result signals the beginning of the end for Steve Bannon's "movement." Beyond that, I can't say that I'm thrilled with Jones. He seems to be something of a moderate, which is good I think, but does support a "living wage," which irks me. Beyond that, there were over 20,000 write-in votes. That's nearly 2%. Write-ins for the 2016 Alabama Senate race clocked in at 0.2%. I think write-ins for the 2016 Presidential Election came in at around 0.5%. For the 2012 Election, they came in at 0.2% (the same for 2008). In 2004, write-ins were...wait for it.... 0.04%! Dude, I fancy myself a pragmatist too, but seriously, between someone who I'm not "thrilled" with because I disagree with some of his economic policies, and a raving anti-Constitutional Christian Dominionist bigot who also apparently has a thing for little girls.... that shouldn't be that irksome.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Dec 13, 2017 12:40:39 GMT -5
I don't know enough about Jones to say I'm glad he won, as much as I'm glad Moore lost. I know a lot of D's are dancing a little jig right now, but the fact it, it should have been this close. Even if you take out the molestation allegations, there was plenty to dislike about Moore. I mean, does the man have any redeeming qualities? He makes Trump look good by comparison.
I'm not sure if this is a victory for Jones, as opposed to a loss for Moore, but I'll take it. However, in the next election, put up a decent R (Which why they couldn't do that this time, I'll never know) and you could be handing the seat back to the R's.
Would have been interesting if someone from the state ran as a conservative independent. I don't think it would have helped Moore, but if it was someone respectable, I could have seen everyone in the R column and the write ins switching over to the I for that.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Dec 13, 2017 13:13:15 GMT -5
Dude, I fancy myself a pragmatist too, but seriously, between someone who I'm not "thrilled" with because I disagree with some of his economic policies, and a raving anti-Constitutional Christian Dominionist bigot who also apparently has a thing for little girls.... that shouldn't be that irksome. *shrug*I'm glad Moore lost. Doesn't mean I have to think Jones is great. But what irks me are politicians who push the "living wage" nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by Don on Dec 13, 2017 13:31:24 GMT -5
But what irks me are politicians who push the "living wage" nonsense. Call 'em out for what they are. Closet eugenicists.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2017 16:13:26 GMT -5
If you're interested, here's a statement by my guy Rick Wilson (seriously, while I don't agree with him on everything, I like and respect him tremendously -- even when I'm not agreeing with him) about the work he did to help Doug Jones's campaign. It includes a link to a very effective spot he created called "Daughters." mailchi.mp/969286d70d50/last-night-in-alabamaYou know, I'm genuinely personally happy about this. It isn't about a Democrat winning. It's about decency and integrity prevailing over pure partisanship. There's just no way a guy like Roy Moore should be in the Senate.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2017 0:20:09 GMT -5
Another nugget on the The Alabama senate vote:
|
|
|
Post by poetinahat on Dec 14, 2017 1:18:56 GMT -5
The idea that the race was close enough for write-ins to be significant is itself telling. The Republican losing in Alabama, then blaming write-in votes, would be like 'Bama losing to, say, Georgia Tech* and blaming it on officiating. It should never come down to that. There's no one to blame but themselves.
Speaking of which, I wonder how many of those write-in votes were for Nick Saban.
*: Those of you who speak Southern football, feel free to substitute a suitable team if this isn't apt.
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Dec 14, 2017 3:36:29 GMT -5
Speaking of which, I wonder how many of those write-in votes were for Nick Saban. I voted for Truman Capote. * *Not really though
|
|
|
Post by Don on Dec 14, 2017 6:02:37 GMT -5
Another nugget on the The Alabama senate vote: If I had a dime for every right-winger I've heard claiming that postmodernism and moral relativism are destroying this country... [rant] I grew up a believer, of sorts, and managed to at least feign religious tolerance for most of my life. At this point, I'm ready to call it out for what it is. Hucksterism at that level should be prosecutable as fraud. If you can't prove your product produces the results you claim, you're selling snake oil. And that goes for politicians, too, IMO. I am now officially religiously and politically intolerant. I see snake oil, I'm gonna call it snake oil. [/rant]
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Dec 14, 2017 21:16:57 GMT -5
[rant] I grew up a believer, of sorts, and managed to at least feign religious tolerance for most of my life. At this point, I'm ready to call it out for what it is. Hucksterism at that level should be prosecutable as fraud. If you can't prove your product produces the results you claim, you're selling snake oil. And that goes for politicians, too, IMO. I am now officially religiously and politically intolerant. I see snake oil, I'm gonna call it snake oil. [/rant] I grew up like you. I'm intolerant of hatred and bigotry where I see it in religion. But it's important to me to distinguish that from religious beliefs that are not hateful or bigoted. Essentially, the right of each person to believe what they will, though I disagree with them. Remember what you've oft quoted from Jefferson, that "a man's religion neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." I'm with you on the political aspect of it all, for sure. Religion, even the non-hateful, non-bigoted sort, has no place in civics. Religion isn't the problem. That religious beliefs are accepted by many as legitimate political positions is a problem.
|
|
|
Post by Don on Dec 14, 2017 22:12:23 GMT -5
[rant] I grew up a believer, of sorts, and managed to at least feign religious tolerance for most of my life. At this point, I'm ready to call it out for what it is. Hucksterism at that level should be prosecutable as fraud. If you can't prove your product produces the results you claim, you're selling snake oil. And that goes for politicians, too, IMO. I am now officially religiously and politically intolerant. I see snake oil, I'm gonna call it snake oil. [/rant] I grew up like you. I'm intolerant of hatred and bigotry where I see it in religion. But it's important to me to distinguish that from religious beliefs that are not hateful or bigoted. Essentially, the right of each person to believe what they will, though I disagree with them. Remember what you've oft quoted from Jefferson, that "a man's religion neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." I'm with you on the political aspect of it all, for sure. Religion, even the non-hateful, non-bigoted sort, has no place in civics. Religion isn't the problem. That religious beliefs are accepted by many as legitimate political positions is a problem. Unorganized spirituality, I got no problem with. Organized religion as a non-profit carnival show is starting to give me serious heartburn. Subsidizing science denialism and illogical behavior with taxpayer funds strikes me as particularly counter-productive to the goals of a civil society. It was different 200+ years ago, when the science was far from settled. That time is long past. This Jefferson quote: Yeah, lovely, but these loons are actively attempting to put a semi-literate dominionist with delusions of grandeur in the upper echelons of the gang "legally" allowed to pick my pocket or break my leg!!! Enough's enough.
|
|
|
Post by Don on Dec 14, 2017 22:26:11 GMT -5
As an aside, I'm almost slavishly fond of the Golden Rule, or the similar statements that are found near the base of all religions. It's at the base of both my personal and political philosophies, right there alongside primum non nocere. It's the lavish interpretations and exceptions that religions lather it with that make me squeamish.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Dec 14, 2017 22:30:31 GMT -5
Yeah, lovely, but these loons are actively attempting to put a semi-literate dominionist with delusions of grandeur at the head of the gang "legally" allowed to pick my pocket or break my leg!!! Enough's enough. My point (and Jefferson's, I think) is that religion is not to blame, only the imposition of such beliefs on others. Surely you can agree with this, on record as you are with being against all manner of non-religiously motivated laws.
|
|
|
Post by Don on Dec 14, 2017 22:38:48 GMT -5
Yeah, lovely, but these loons are actively attempting to put a semi-literate dominionist with delusions of grandeur at the head of the gang "legally" allowed to pick my pocket or break my leg!!! Enough's enough. My point (and Jefferson's, I think) is that religion is not to blame, only the imposition of such beliefs on others. Surely you can agree with this, on record as you are with being against all manner of non-religiously motivated laws. Agreed. When they're back in their corner on their stools, I'll take off the gloves. Meanwhile, I'm in the ring.
|
|