Democrat Doug Jones defeats Trump-endorsed pedophile Roy Moore in Alabama Senate race

Alabama -- a state that Trump won by 28 percentage points just over a year ago.

MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) — Democrat Doug Jones wins election to the U.S. Senate from Alabama, as voters in the deeply conservative and heavily Republican state deal a stark political blow to Fake President Trump and narrow the GOP’s majority in the Senate to two seats. The state’s former U.S. attorney beat Roy Moore, a former chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court whose campaign was upended by allegations of sexual misconduct involving teenage girls amid a national reckoning with such sordid conduct.

https://apnews.com/d54394e7782a448e92a53e67f3913a88

Trump better think twice about appointing any more Republican Senators to Cabinet positions or other posts.

Because now ...

NO SEAT IS SAFE


                         

Ben Reilly wrote:

This wasn’t a slap in the face, it was a massive sucker punch!

Trump supports paedophiles, white supremacists, and stealing native lands...

What's the odds now,  that he leans a bit that way himself ???

Yea...although, I was looking forward to the embarrassment of the Republicans.

Senate is now 50-50.

And a word by our sponser smelly



Sorry folks, but apparantly, he has gone out on a date with a feminist.

No Democrat had been elected to statewide office in Alabama since 1992.

Until Trump stepped in and demonstrated the same leadership that led him to tweet about Matt Lauer after North Korea successfully tested an ICBM capable of reaching most of the world, and to tweet nastily about a Democratic Senator in lieu of addressing an attempted terrorist attack on New York.

It's funny how this thread doesn't stink at all. I could never call this thread smelly. I wonder if it will ever become smelly.

Doubt it

I think the Stench was flushed down the toilet pan with it's brown stained psper

‘I Think Bannon Made an Ass of Himself’: Republicans Rejoice in Breitbart Chief’s Alabama Humiliation.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/i-think-bannon-made-an-ass-of-himself-republicans-rejoice-in-breitbart-chiefs-alabama-humiliation

Didge wrote:‘I Think Bannon Made an Ass of Himself’: Republicans Rejoice in Breitbart Chief’s Alabama Humiliation.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/i-think-bannon-made-an-ass-of-himself-republicans-rejoice-in-breitbart-chiefs-alabama-humiliation

Good. I want to go back to the good old days when I just disagreed with these people but didn't feel like I was supposed to be at war with them.

I saw the Alabama paedo' riding his horse into the polling station on the news here tonight...

He looked even more ridiculous in action than he did in the earlier photo's..

I could outride that ludicrous clown,  hands down --  and the last time I was on a horse was back in 1985  !        

Original Quill wrote:

Yea...although, I was looking forward to the embarrassment of the Republicans.  

Senate is now 50-50.

No it’s 51-49.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

I saw the Alabama paedo' riding his horse into the polling station on the news here tonight...

He looked even more ridiculous in action than he did in the earlier photo's..

I could outride that ludicrous clown,  hands down --  and the last time I was on a horse was back in 1985  !        

He wouldn’t concede. He’s sick as well as ridiculous. Hopefully he’ll ride off into the sunset now.

Cass wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Yea...although, I was looking forward to the embarrassment of the Republicans.  

Senate is now 50-50.

No it’s 51-49.

You're right.  I stand corrected.

It will be in Democratic hands next year.

FLASHBACK: Trump Predicted Roy Moore Would Lose

Moore, who battled decades-old allegations of sexual misconduct during the final weeks of his campaign, as evidence that the electoral tide is turning against Cheeto-Faced Ferret-Wearing Shit Gibbon.

NBC News calls the election outcome a "stunning victory." POLITICO reports on the "Alabama earthquake." The Washington Post calls it "miraculous." To hear the fake news media tell it, not since the Battle of Lepanto has an underdog overcome such odds. Who could have possibly predicted this?


It turns out, Cheeto-Faced Ferret-Wearing Shit Gibbon did. On September 22, Cheeto-Faced Ferret-Wearing Shit Gibbon predicted that Roy Moore would likely lose to his Democrat opponent in the general election. He explained,

I have to say this, and you understand this and just look at the polls. Luther will definitely win. Roy has a very good chance of not winning in the general election. It's all about the general. Don't forget, we don't stop here. You have an election coming up the day this is over. So this is over on Tuesday. On Wednesday morning, the new race begins. You've got to beat a Democrat. Luther is going to win easily and Roy's going to have a hard time winning.

If only Alabama Republican primary voters had listened. "Sad!"

https://www.dailywire.com/news/24620/flashback-trump-predicted-roy-moore-would-lose-michael-j-knowles?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_content=062316-news&utm_campaign=benshapiro

Original Quill wrote:

Cass wrote:

No it’s 51-49.

You're right.  I stand corrected.

It will be in Democratic hands next year.

will this mean McConnell is out and a democrat will be Senate leader?

Lurker wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

You're right.  I stand corrected.

It will be in Democratic hands next year.

will this mean McConnell is out and a democrat will be Senate leader?

When the Democrats retake the Senate, McConnell will move over to become the minority leader of the Republican caucus, and the Democrats will select the Majority Leader of the Senate, presumably Chuck Schumer (present minority leader).

Yes, McConnell will be out.

Good news. I hope the guy feels shame and also faces some punishment too.
I also hope Trump learns from this but I do doubt it.

Original Quill wrote:

Yea...although, I was looking forward to the embarrassment of the Republicans.  

Senate is now 50-50.

No it's not. Do you actually live in the US?

Original Quill wrote:

Cass wrote:

No it’s 51-49.

You're right.  I stand corrected.

It will be in Democratic hands next year.

Doubtful. The Dems have far more seats to defend. The likelihood of Republicans nominating more pieces of shit like Moore is fairly remote.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

You're right.  I stand corrected.

It will be in Democratic hands next year.

Doubtful.  The Dems have far more seats to defend.  The likelihood of Republicans nominating more pieces of shit like Moore is fairly remote.  

Of 33 seats up in the Senate in 2018, Democrats have 23 seats up for election along with 2 independents who caucus with them. Republicans have 8 seats up for election.
But, the Democrats need only take two seats to control the Senate.  For reasons that follow, the Democrats have the secure seats...the Republican 8 seats are not so secure.

Frankly, I think it's Trump and his antics that the people are sick of.  But the people realize that Trump is in for three more years...unless the legislature changes.  Republicans are fellow travelers with Trump.

With a Democratic House and Senate, the impeachment proceedings could commence.  At the very least, there won't be any more Tax Bills and tries for healthcare repeal.

Really, it isn't the defeat of Moore, or the triumph of Jones that is happening here.  I offer as further proof, the election results in Virginia and New Jersey.  There's a wave building momentum, and its a wave of rejection of the inept, wacky and insane.  Republicans are on their way out.  

Paedophiles and pussy-grabbing are sideshows.  People are tired of Republican obstruction and divisiveness...which apparently doesn't abate even when Republicans hold both Houses and the Executive.  I mean, people are not as dumb as Republicans seem to think...at some point they realize they are on a dead-end street.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Doubtful.  The Dems have far more seats to defend.  The likelihood of Republicans nominating more pieces of shit like Moore is fairly remote.  

Of 33 seats up in the Senate in 2018, Democrats have 23 seats up for election along with 2 independents who caucus with them. Republicans have 8 seats up for election.
But, the Democrats need only take two seats to control the Senate.  For reasons that follow, the Democrats have the secure seats...the Republican 8 seats are not so secure.

Frankly, I think it's Trump and his antics that the people are sick of.  But the people realize that Trump is in for three more years...unless the legislature changes.  Republicans are fellow travelers with Trump.

With a Democratic House and Senate, the impeachment proceedings could commence.  At the very least, there won't be any more Tax Bills and tries for healthcare repeal.

Really, it isn't the defeat of Moore, or the triumph of Jones that is happening here.  I offer as further proof, the election results in Virginia and New Jersey.  There's a wave building momentum, and its a wave of rejection of the inept, wacky and insane.  Republicans are on their way out.  

Paedophiles and pussy-grabbing are sideshows.  People are tired of Republican obstruction and divisiveness...which apparently doesn't abate even when Republicans hold both Houses and the Executive.  I mean, people are not as dumb as Republicans seem to think...at some point they realize they are on a dead-end street.

Your first sentence explained why the odds are against the Dems in 2018.

Do you understand statistics and probability?

The results of the 2017 United States Senate Special Election In Alabama were surprising. Even more surprising is who came in third – the head coach for the local college football team.

Nick Saban, head coach for the University of Alabama football team received 20,500 write-in votes for the election to replace Attorney General Jeff Sessions, yes, even despite losing the Iron Bowl.

Some Alabama residents were so admit about nominating him, they even paid for and ran ads to inform others how to write in Saban as their vote.

http://dailysnark.com/nick-saban-came-3rd-place-alabama-senate-election-20k-votes/

Saban may have won, if he had beaten Auburn.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Of 33 seats up in the Senate in 2018, Democrats have 23 seats up for election along with 2 independents who caucus with them. Republicans have 8 seats up for election.
But, the Democrats need only take two seats to control the Senate.  For reasons that follow, the Democrats have the secure seats...the Republican 8 seats are not so secure.

Frankly, I think it's Trump and his antics that the people are sick of.  But the people realize that Trump is in for three more years...unless the legislature changes.  Republicans are fellow travelers with Trump.

With a Democratic House and Senate, the impeachment proceedings could commence.  At the very least, there won't be any more Tax Bills and tries for healthcare repeal.

Really, it isn't the defeat of Moore, or the triumph of Jones that is happening here.  I offer as further proof, the election results in Virginia and New Jersey.  There's a wave building momentum, and its a wave of rejection of the inept, wacky and insane.  Republicans are on their way out.  

Paedophiles and pussy-grabbing are sideshows.  People are tired of Republican obstruction and divisiveness...which apparently doesn't abate even when Republicans hold both Houses and the Executive.  I mean, people are not as dumb as Republicans seem to think...at some point they realize they are on a dead-end street.

Your first sentence explained why the odds are against the  Dems in 2018.  

Do you understand statistics and probability?

Statistics and probability are just numbers, which have to have the substance plugged in.  Surely, you have heard the old saying: garbage in, garbage out!  It means pay attention to the substance, and not just the numbers. If you only care about the numbers, you get garbage.

In this case, we are considering two kinds of substance: 1) that the opportunities for election are greater for Republicans due to the availability (or exposure) of Democratic seats; or 2) that the Alabama was a part of a greater trend, which even the Republicans are beginning pick up, to reject the antics of Trump and his fellow travelers.

You are basing your argument (number '1') on mere chance of opportunities: Republicans have fewer exposures.  But politics is much more complex.  Mere chance of opportunities can be overwhelmed by political trends.  That's why I widen the discussion to more than Alabama.  When you take into account what is happening all over the country, paying attention to Virginia and New Jersey as well, you see a trend developing.

Mere numbers or chances are not very significant.  What is significant is the trend that you are seeing, of voters rejecting the antics of the crazy and mendacious.  The rejection of Trump and his fellow Republicans is a political movement that is sweeping the nation.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Your first sentence explained why the odds are against the  Dems in 2018.  

Do you understand statistics and probability?

Statistics and probability are just numbers, which have to have the substance plugged in.  Surely, you have heard the old saying: garbage in, garbage out!  It means pay attention to the substance, and not just the numbers.  If you only care about the numbers, you get garbage.

In this case, we are considering two kinds of substance: 1) that the opportunities for election are greater for Republicans due to the availability (or exposure) of Democratic seats; or 2) that the Alabama was a part of a greater trend, which even the Republicans are beginning pick up, to reject the antics of Trump and his fellow travelers.

You are basing your argument (number '1') on mere chance of opportunities: Republicans have fewer exposures.  But politics is much more complex.  Mere chance of opportunities can be overwhelmed by political trends.  That's why I widen the discussion to more than Alabama.  When you take into account what is happening all over the country, paying attention to Virginia and New Jersey as well, you see a trend developing.

Mere numbers or chances are not very significant.  What is significant is the trend that you are seeing, of voters rejecting the antics of the crazy and mendacious.  The rejection of Trump and his fellow Republicans is a political movement that is sweeping the nation.

OK.

MD, you're basing that dismissive "OK" on a world that doesn't really exist any more. Have you heard of the #MeToo movement by any chance? Do you not realize that this is directed right at Trump and men like him?

We've got Republicans like this one in Wisconsin saying:

“I think Cheeto-Faced Ferret-Wearing Shit Gibbon’s favorability ratings, I’ve got to be honest about it, they’re certainly not helpful. If it were up to me, I would try to have him showcase more of the good things that he is doing as opposed to picking arguments with whoever it would be. I don’t think that’s helpful to me as an elected official.”

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/364576-republicans-fear-deep-losses-in-2018-elections

You know, not to mention the fact that Trump and Co. may very well be Russian puppets. I think a lot of people are paying attention to that, as well, and not liking what they see.

Ben wrote:MD, you're basing that dismissive "OK" on a world that doesn't really exist any more.

It's not a "dismissive OK".  He gave away the store with that answer.  He's conceding that the basic assumption of statistics gives way to the influence of politics.

Look, statistics was a science that was born at the gambling tables of Europe.  If you flip a coin many times, what are the probabilities that the results will turn out heads, or tails?  All statistics begin with an assumption of a 50-50 probability of something happening (mean).  That's probability without influence (pw/oi), or the norm (from normal).

Now introduce some influence (like the #MeToo movement in politics).  You measure influence by calibrating the deviation (dev) from the norm (pw/oi). (That's why we speak of mean standard deviation [msd]).  The deviation from uninfluenced, or norm.

MD was making the argument that the norm will prevail.  But what if it does not?  Well, statistics accounts for that and we have hypotheses that try to explain it.

Or, turn it around, and say we are trying to predict something: MD is arguing that prediction will be according to the norm (pw/oi).  That assumption is unwarranted when we know there there is some influence present.

One hypothesis is that an influence is the sweeping wave of Trump revulsion.  That is affecting the norm.  In essence, MD is not being dismissive, but conceding my point.

Ben Reilly wrote:MD, you're basing that dismissive "OK" on a world that doesn't really exist any more. Have you heard of the #MeToo movement by any chance? Do you not realize that this is directed right at Trump and men like him?

We've got Republicans like this one in Wisconsin saying:

“I think Cheeto-Faced Ferret-Wearing Shit Gibbon’s favorability ratings, I’ve got to be honest about it, they’re certainly not helpful. If it were up to me, I would try to have him showcase more of the good things that he is doing as opposed to picking arguments with whoever it would be. I don’t think that’s helpful to me as an elected official.”

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/364576-republicans-fear-deep-losses-in-2018-elections

You know, not to mention the fact that Trump and Co. may very well be Russian puppets. I think a lot of people are paying attention to that, as well, and not liking what they see.

Of course I have heard of the me too movement. It was brought down as many on the left as on the right because that perversion knows no party.

When I'm dismissive, it's because I become bored with someone who types and types and says nothing. They're just enamored with their own words.

I also get dismissive when fellow Americans get so muchnwrong in terms of actual numbers and figures. Quill was on a roll yesterday.

Maddog wrote:Of course I have heard of the me too movement. It was brought down as many on the left as on the right because that perversion knows no party.

But you clearly do not understand it. It’s an ‘opt-in’ movement, not to be confused with false equivalency, as you do. Child rape is not the same as crude photographic jokes. One is a crime, one is merely poor taste.

Maddog wrote:When I'm dismissive, it's because I become bored with someone who types and types and says nothing. They're just enamored with their own words.

‘Bored’ is not a very good excuse to quit on the job. If you’ve got a point to make, make it. Quitters are losers.

Maddog wrote:I also get dismissive when fellow Americans get so muchnwrong in terms of actual numbers and figures. Quill was on a roll yesterday.

It’s obvious you don’t know shit about statistics. If you want to make this about me, I taught classes in quantitative methodology at Berkeley, Rutgers University, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, of the City University of New York, and at the University of Arizona.

I frequently have to run around behind you cleaning up your misguided droppings, lest people are misled. You misuse statistics, just as you can’t even build balanced equivalencies.

That's the roll I was on yesterday.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:Of course I have heard of the me too movement. It was brought down as many on the left as on the right because that perversion knows no party.

But you clearly do not understand it.  It’s an ‘opt-in’ movement, not to be confused with false equivalency, as you do.  Child rape is not the same as crude photographic jokes.  One is a crime, one is merely poor taste.

Maddog wrote:When I'm dismissive, it's because I become bored with someone who types and types and says nothing. They're just enamored with their own words.

‘Bored’ is not a very good excuse to quit on the job.  If you’ve got a point to make, make it.  Quitters are losers.

Maddog wrote:I also get dismissive when fellow Americans get so muchnwrong in terms of actual numbers and figures. Quill was on a roll yesterday.

It’s obvious you don’t know shit about statistics.  If you want to make this about me, I taught classes in quantitative methodology at Berkeley, Rutgers University, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, of the City University of New York, and at the University of Arizona.

I frequently have to run around behind you cleaning up your misguided droppings, lest people are misled.  You misuse statistics, just as you can’t even build balanced equivalencies.

That's the roll I was on yesterday.

OK.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Cass wrote:

No it’s 51-49.

You're right.  I stand corrected.

It will be in Democratic hands next year.

Doubtful.  The Dems have far more seats to defend.  The likelihood of Republicans nominating more pieces of shit like Moore is fairly remote.  

Sharon Angle, Christine O'Donnell, Tod Akin ... Donald Trump ... Roy Moore ... they don't seem to be improving, do they?

Trump faced fierce resistance from the Republican establishment and ended up taking 45 percent of the vote. The closest was 25 percent -- and that was Ted Cruz.

Trump did that while mocking military heroes, a reporter with a disability ... he was on the record with the "grab them by the pussy" comment ... he made racist comments and worse, and that's exactly who the GOP base wanted.

As the conservative Wall Street Journal observed:

"Donald Trump gives credence to the left’s caricature of bigoted conservatives." https://www.wsj.com/articles/staring-at-the-conservative-gutter-1456791777

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Doubtful.  The Dems have far more seats to defend.  The likelihood of Republicans nominating more pieces of shit like Moore is fairly remote.  

Sharon Angle, Christine O'Donnell, Tod Akin ... Donald Trump ... Roy Moore ... they don't seem to be improving, do they?

Trump faced fierce resistance from the Republican establishment and ended up taking 45 percent of the vote. The closest was 25 percent -- and that was Ted Cruz.

Trump did that while mocking military heroes, a reporter with a disability ... he was on the record with the "grab them by the pussy" comment ... he made racist comments and worse, and that's exactly who the GOP base wanted.

As the conservative Wall Street Journal observed:

"Donald Trump gives credence to the left’s caricature of bigoted conservatives." https://www.wsj.com/articles/staring-at-the-conservative-gutter-1456791777

Trump is no doubt hurting the Republican brand. If the numbers were reversed, it would be a blood bath for the Republicans. 2018 gives republicans a huge advantage based on the number of Dem seats that are up. If Trump makes it to 2020, and the Republicans can't primary him, that election could be a landslide for the Dems.

It also is going to matter what kind of people win Republican primaries. If Republicans keep picking people like Roy Moore over Luther Strange, then Dems may make huge strides in 2018.

Trump didn't win the popular count the first time around.  There's every reason to believe that he will lose again, only this time by a hughly greater margin.

Although, I'm betting he wont get to 2020. He will be impeached, convicted, and then arrested and put on trial in New York District Court for conspiring against the US.

Original Quill wrote:Trump didn't win the popular count the first time around.  There's every reason to believe that he will lose again, only this time by a hughly greater margin.

Although, I'm betting he wont get to 2020.  He will be impeached, convicted, and then arrested and put on trial in New York District Court for conspiring against the US.

Can you predict a time

smelly-bandit wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Trump didn't win the popular count the first time around.  There's every reason to believe that he will lose again, only this time by a hughly greater margin.

Although, I'm betting he wont get to 2020.  He will be impeached, convicted, and then arrested and put on trial in New York District Court for conspiring against the US.

Can you predict a time

Predict with certainty, no. The House is the key. My hunch is that the wave felt in Virginia, Alabama and New Jersey will continue in the mid-term elections of 2018.

Original Quill wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:


Can you predict a time

Predict with certainty, no.  The House is the key.  My hunch is that the wave felt in Virginia, Alabama and New Jersey will continue in the mid-term elections of 2018.

So meuller is waiting for the house to swing for the Democrats before moving on trump??

Sounds more like meuller is a political inquisitor doing a witch hunt than a law enforcement agent.

The American people won't tolerate that

smelly-bandit wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Predict with certainty, no.  The House is the key.  My hunch is that the wave felt in Virginia, Alabama and New Jersey will continue in the mid-term elections of 2018.

So meuller is waiting for the house to swing for the Democrats before moving on trump??

Sounds more like meuller is a political inquisitor doing a witch hunt than a law enforcement agent.

The American people won't tolerate that

From all appearances, Mueller is not waiting for anything. His findings will still be there after the 2018 elections.

smelly-bandit wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:


Can you predict a time

Predict with certainty, no.  The House is the key.  My hunch is that the wave felt in Virginia, Alabama and New Jersey will continue in the mid-term elections of 2018.

So meuller is waiting for the house to swing for the Democrats before moving on trump??

Sounds more like meuller is a political inquisitor doing a witch hunt than a law enforcement agent.

The American people won't tolerate that

Maybe you should read a bit about Mueller before you drag the name of a fine conservative military man through the muck any farther. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Mueller

Ben Reilly wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

So meuller is waiting for the house to swing for the Democrats before moving on trump??

Sounds more like meuller is a political inquisitor doing a witch hunt than a law enforcement agent.

The American people won't tolerate that

Maybe you should read a bit about Mueller before you drag the name of a fine conservative military man through the muck any farther. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Mueller

Mueller's not a bad dude. He is one of a handful of folks that most Dems and Reps could agree on to do something like this.

However, when this all over, there will be a sizeable chunk of folks that no longer think he is a decent man.

Maddog wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maybe you should read a bit about Mueller before you drag the name of a fine conservative military man through the muck any farther. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Mueller

Mueller's not a bad dude. He is one of a handful of folks that most Dems and Reps could agree on to do something like this.

However, when this all over, there will be a sizeable chunk of folks that no longer think he is a decent man.

Haha...there are already a sizable chunk of folks that no longer think Trump is a decent man.  It goes with the territory.

It's doubtful that America will ever recover from it's divisiveness.  It is two nations, de facto. Ultimately, it must be broken up.