Connect with us

Democrats

Allegations cost Roy Moore and the GOP a Senate seat as Doug Jones wins Alabama

Published

on

Allegations cost Roy Moore and the GOP a Senate seat as Doug Jones wins Alabama

Democrat Doug Jones beat out Republican Roy Moore for one of Alabama’s Senate seats in the most controversial election of 2017. Jones, considered a sacrificial lamb before allegations of sexual misconduct were levied on Moore, is the first Democrat to win a Senate seat in Alabama since Richard Shelby did so in 1987. Six years after winning, Shelby switched to the Republican Party and has been with the GOP ever since.

It was a nail-biter. With 90% of the vote counted, over 1.1 million total, less than 500 votes separated the two. Jones pulled away in the end.

This is a stunning blow for the Republicans who never expected to lose the seat once held by Attorney General Jeff Sessions, but in many ways they dodged a bullet. A Moore victory would have been a challenge for them in light of the recent explosion of sexual misconduct allegations made against politicians and other men in power.

Reactions from the press and on social media are coming in fast. We’ll be updating this article for a while to capture as many real-time reactions as possible.

Reactions

Continue Reading
Advertisement
1 Comment

1 Comment

  1. ed

    December 13, 2017 at 10:51 am

    I’d be interested in an analysis of the voter turn-out in AL – broken down by party.

    I suspect may Republicans and independents simply stayed home.

    Realizing the Democrat was no conservative and does not represent Alabama traditional values, why might people have stayed home instead of voting for Roy Moore ?

    True Christians and conservatives (absent the issues below) would likely have voted for Moore (giving him the benefit of the doubt) based on the timing, general lack of proof and lack of credibility of the accuser’s lawyers (Gloria Allred and Theresa Bloom – two known DNC election-sex-scandal operatives). Also 40 scandal-free yrs in public life with a clear bias toward Biblical values and beliefs on the bench and a recent history of fighting to preserve STATE laws against homosexual marriage after the USSC struck down the national law(s), should have reflected well on him.

    However, there is always the aftermath and post-election “analysis” (spin) to deal with also. A vote for Roy Moore at the end would have been spun as approval of Mitch McConnell’s last-minute support and proof of Trump’s “pull” with the voters after Trump spent most of the campaign bashing Roy Moore and McConnell did everything he could to pull all GOP support within the state and turn the national party apparatus against Moore based on un-proven allegations and Mcconnell’s personal biases & beliefs. McConnell threatened not to seat Moore had he won and has an open threat to immediately launch an ethics investigation against him had he won. Yet near the end of the election when it appears Moore may win anyway, McConnell suddenly changes direction and goes into full-throated support mode. Why ? Was there an “accomodation” or “deal” made between Moore and McConnell or is McConnell simply trying to be seen as on the “winning” side ? I can understand people deciding that continued support for the RNC is a worse decision than choosing what may be a marginally (since the allegations are unproven) better Republican over a totally repugnant Democrat if it means also supporting McConnell’s grandstanding and continued power-base within the GOP).

    Trump initially backed Strange, then refused to endorse Moore, actively working against him. Once the accusations appeared to be ineffective, Trump suddenly decides to support and endorse Moore – likely so Trump can claim Moore’s “victory” would be because of his doing. Voting for Moore would be playing into Trump’s ego and contributing to the myth of Trump’s popularity. I can understand many people simply not voting in a choice between two questionable candidates (particularly when doing so forces them to “pick a side” and “support” Trump and Trump’s complete lack of morality and decency – especially since Trump can be counted on to try to take full credit for Moore’s “win” that McConnell would immediately be sabotaging with ethics investigations and expulsion votes in the Senate).

    Voting for Roy Moore in an attempt to seat a conservative in the Senate also means playing into the Bannon narrative that a vote for Roy Moore is a vote against Mitch McConnell & Trump given the rhetoric of the media and (I suspect) campaign commercials. Then to have Trump send out robo-calls “supporting” Moore & to see McConnell’s last-minute support of Moore can easily lead one to question whether voting for Moore is a vote in support of Bannon’s “America-First”,alt-right campaign or in support of the “new” Republican Party and it’s primary representative and role-model Donald Trump or in support of the anti-conservative status quo represetned by Mitch Mcconnell. If none of the above 3 options are attractive and the Democrat is a non-starter based on DNC policies, there’s likely a VERY strong argument to simply stay home and not vote if one is registered Republican. How one can justify voting for Bannon’s anti-Trump, anti-McConnell campaign when both Trump and McConnell have endorsed Moore is a hard question to answer. Likewise, voting for Moore in support of Trump given the months of Bannon’s anti-Trump/anti-McConnel campaigning or voting on “Republican issues” when bot the pro-Trump (Trump endorsement), anti-Trump (Bannon endorsement) and pro-establishment (McConnell endorsement) and anti-establishment (McConnell refusal to support Moore’s campaign and attempts to prevent any GOP resource from supporting him) all would claim that your vote supports “their” side.

    Voting FOR Doug Jones is not likely on the radar of most conservatives and Christians in Alabama, but voting for Roy Moore in a choice between two evils when all opposing Republican factions are waiting to claim victory for his win and will point fingers at a loss seems to also be a non-staring position, leaving only not voting as the only honorable action for those Alabama voters that care about character in our politicians or leadership of our country.

    That’s why I’d be interested in a turn-out analysis.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Democrats

Andrew Gillum concedes to Ron DeSantis in Florida gubernatorial race

Published

on

Andrew Gillum concedes to Ron DeSantis in Florida gubernatorial race

It was arguably the most watched gubernatorial race in the nation this past midterm election season and it didn’t disappoint. It took a recount and multiple lawsuits to finish, but in the end Republican Ron DeSantis defeated Democrat Andrew Gillum.

The mayor of Jacksonville finally conceded for the second time today, nearly two weeks after election day. He already conceded once on election fight.

Andrew Gillum concedes in Florida governor’s race for second time

https://www.tallahassee.com/story/news/2018/11/17/andrew-gillum-concedes-florida-governors-race-second-time/2041301002/In a four-minute video posted live on Facebook, Mayor Gillum stood with his wife R. Jai, a Tallahassee park in the background and both dressed in Florida A&M University orange and green. Gillum first thanked his supporters. Then, he officially acknowledged Republican Ron DeSantis as the winner.

“R. Jai and I wanted to take a moment to congratulate Mr. DeSantis on becoming the next governor of the great state of Florida,” Gillum said in the video posted at about 5 p.m.

DeSantis Tweeted acknowledgement of the concession.

Florida is a bellwether for the 2020 presidential election. The closeness of the race and the apparent corruption in the state means both parties have a lot of work to do. The state needs to get their act together before then as well.

Continue Reading

Democrats

Stacey Abrams doesn’t concede in her non-concession speech

Published

on

Stacey Abrams doesn't concede in her non-concession speech

Republican Brian Kemp will be the next governor of Georgia. He defeated Democrat Stacey Abrams by receiving 50.2% of the vote, negating the possibility of a runoff election.

Abrams isn’t happy about it. She said today she’s unwilling to concede but acknowledged that Kemp would be certified as the winner. In a strange political doublespeak way, she fought back against a system that prevented her from rightfully winning.

Or something.

Bottom line: She lost. She, President Obama, and Oprah Winfrey failed to get her enough voters to win the election. Whether she actually concedes or not is irrelevant.

Continue Reading

Democrats

Kamala Harris pushes fraudulent ‘petition’ to build her 2020 fundraising spam list

Published

on

The worlds of marketing and political campaigning have many things in common. Their intention is to persuade people. They’re both selling something. They employ tested colors, designs, and buzzwords to get people excited. One of the keys to their success is something called “list-building.”

With ballots from the 2018 elections still being counted, Senator Kamala Harris is wasting no time building her 2020 list. To do it, she’s employing a deceptive technique, promoting an online “petition” that’s really nothing more than a way to get people to willingly give her campaign their contact information. These people will be targeted with campaign fundraisers later.

No official announcement has been made about her 2020 presidential run, but it’s hard to believe she’s not running after purchasing 1,100 Facebook ads to promote these “petitions.” A Facebook ad doesn’t have a set cost, but we can assume big money is being put into these list-building ads because of the sheer volume. To put it into perspective, Beto O’Rourke spent around $5 million on Facebook ads for his Senate campaign. Presidential campaigns can easily spend 25 times as much as an expensive Senate campaign.

Unlike a valid petition people often sign to get a candidate or proposition on a ballot, these list-building petitions don’t actually do anything. People are told they’re demanding this action or that, but in the end they’re just giving over information. Some go so far as to ask for everything, including name, address, phone numbers, email, and occasionally even income. These lists grow much more slowly because of the depth of the information requested.

A more common technique is to ask for minimal data to encourage people to fill it out. At the end of the day, all a campaign really needs is an email address they can later use in fundraising campaigns. Here’s an example of an ad Senator Harris’ campaign recently put out:

Kamala Harris Petition

The meta data reveals the page was titled, “Acquisition: 180822 Mueller FB.”

“FB” means it was a Facebook campaign. “Mueller” was the topic. “180822” is the tracking number for A/B testing. “Acquisition” is the goal. Anyone who signed this “petition” has just had their contact information acquired. Mission accomplished. They will soon be receiving emails asking them to donate to the Kamala Harris 2020 presidential election fund.

As for the results of the “petition,” they will go nowhere. There won’t be a Congressional action that is enabled by the thousands of people who “signed” it. You won’t see Kamala Harris standing in front of the White House reading off the names of the people who participated in the “petition.” She couldn’t do that even if she wanted to because the “petition” only asks for a first name. Are there really people out there who believe signing a petition only requires a first name?

Senator Harris is promoting fraudulent petitions with the sole purpose if building her 2020 fundraising spam list. Anyone who “signs” it believing they’re demanding protection for Robert Mueller is a sucker. That’s exactly who she wants to target.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement Donate to NOQ Report

Facebook

Twitter

Trending

Copyright © 2018 NOQ Report