ChrisWeigant.com

Alabama's Stunning Upset

[ Posted Tuesday, December 12th, 2017 – 18:10 UTC ]

Doug Jones will be the next senator from Alabama, according to all media sources. With over 90 percent of the votes counted, Jones snatched away the lead that Roy Moore had been holding for almost the entire night. Rural votes got counted first, but when the urban votes came in, they propelled Jones into the lead. Alabama has stunned the nation with this upset victory -- the first Democrat they'll have in the U.S. Senate in a quarter-century.

Before everyone gets too excited, though, a few things are worth pointing out. First, there will likely be a recount, as the margin is still incredibly slim (within 10,000 votes, as of this writing, out of more than a million cast). But even if a recount doesn't happen, it still would have been a few weeks before Jones would have replaced Luther Strange in the Senate. The vote count has to be officially certified, which takes some time.

So tonight's victory likely isn't going to change the dynamic in the Senate for the upcoming vote on the Republican tax plan, or for the year-end budget bill. Republicans will still hold onto their 52-48 majority until (at the very earliest) the end of December. And that is before taking into account how long a recount and/or challenge will take. Remember, Al Franken didn't get seated until the summer after he won his initial victory, due to a very long legal process.

Even so, this is good news indeed for Democrats, and very bad news for Republicans, for Steve Bannon, and for Donald Trump. Bannon and Trump went all-in on a very flawed candidate, and their influence just didn't work. I haven't seen any rage-tweeting from Trump yet, but I have no doubt he'll be blaming the loss on everyone and everything under the sun (other than himself, of course) by early tomorrow morning, at the latest. I have no idea who Bannon will blame the loss on, but I'm betting he won't blame it on Trump, either.

The most interesting thing from the election results (to me, at least) was the high number of write-in votes. Over one percent of all votes cast were write-ins, which is an abnormally high percentage, especially for a special election. If the write-in percentage is greater than the margin of victory for Jones, it will mean that disaffected Republicans who just couldn't bring themselves to vote for Moore -- which includes the state's other senator, Richard Shelby -- will have essentially thrown the race to the Democrat. In Alabama, that's pretty astounding.

Of course, much ink will be spilled over what the race means to the national political landscape. The answer is really "not much" in an absolute sense, although it is indeed meaningful on a psychological scale. People are already comparing this election to Scott Brown winning a special election in Massachusetts -- a seat that really should have gone to one party, and will likely revert back to that one party once a regular election happens.

Although Jones winning will move the needle in the Senate by one seat, it will not shift the balance of power. Republicans will still be in the majority, but it will be the slimmest of majorities: 51-49. Up until now, Democrats needed three Republican senators to cross the aisle in order to defeat GOP bills, and that will now shrink to just two defections needed to derail a bill. That could mean even less gets done in 2018 than 2017, but that was already more than likely (since it'll be an election year, when little of note gets done in Congress anyway).

Psychologically, though, this is an enormous victory for Democrats. Snaking away what was supposed to be a safe Republican seat is going to send a shiver of fear throughout the Republican Party, as each candidate in next year's midterms contemplates a Democratic wave building against them. After the stunning victory Democrats managed in Virginia in November, this is going to be a tangible fear among GOP candidates. In fact, we might soon see a wave of Republicans currently in Congress deciding not to run for re-election, so that they can choose to retire rather than have the voters chuck them out of office.

But the lessons learned in Alabama probably won't scale up to many other races next year, at least not directly. Roy Moore was such a unique individual, with such monstrous baggage, that the conditions for his loss aren't very likely to crop up in any other races. Then again, it's not entirely out of the question, since Steve Bannon is still going to be gunning for as many sitting GOP senators as he can -- raising the likelihood that he'll pick another loser in at least one other race. Maybe Todd "Legitimate Rape" Akin will make another run with Bannon's encouragement, who knows?

So Democrats will be giddily excited about seeing Doug Jones in the Senate, but other than feeling the wind at their backs heading into 2018, the Alabama victory is most likely just a fluke (like Scott Brown's victory turned out to be for the GOP). It will make things much tougher for Mitch McConnell next year, and it may prevent some truly awful legislation from passing. It also may serve to exacerbate the intra-party war being waged over control of the Republican Party, as people like Bannon and Trump take on "the establishment." That's all to the good, of course, for Democrats.

Some Democrats (and some pundits) are already getting over-enthused about what the Jones win means. It does put the control of the Senate on the line next year, since Democrats will only have to pick up two seats to hand Chuck Schumer control of the chamber. They've got a decent chance of picking up two seats (Nevada and Arizona), but they also have to defend an enormous number of states as well -- many of which voted for Donald Trump last year. So even with the margin cut to only two pickups necessary to regain the majority, it's still going to be incredibly difficult to pull off. Democrats would need to completely run the table in 2018 to make it happen. But the Jones victory has made it a possibility, where a Moore victory might have put it out of reach entirely.

Again, the biggest thing the Alabama upset gives the Democrats is a feeling that the country is starting to decide it has had enough of Donald Trump, and enough of Republicans running everything in Washington. If enough voters turn out, then anything is possible. Even a Democrat winning a race in the Deep South. Republican Party money didn't help Moore, Steve Bannon didn't help Moore, and Donald Trump didn't help Moore. No matter how relevant tonight's upset turns out to be for the midterms, that is satisfying enough for Democrats for the time being.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

93 Comments on “Alabama's Stunning Upset”

  1. [1] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    OK, I'll get things rolling...

    Jones up 56% to 44%

    Woo hoo!

    Oh, wait, that's only like 750 votes counted... heh...

    :-)

    -CW

  2. [2] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Have no idea which votes are coming in first, but Jones is now up 61-39, with ~3K votes in.

    This is still less than 1%, but it is fun to watch for the time being...

    -CW

  3. [3] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    OK, finally getting some county-by-county data. Jones up 64-36, with 0.3% in. Still a long way to go...

    -CW

  4. [4] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Jones seems to be holding a 4K vote lead, with 3% reporting. Still very early, though...

    -CW

  5. [5] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Write-in votes are above 1.0%. It'll be interesting to see if this holds, because most of them are assumably GOP voters who couldn't bring themselves to vote for Moore...

    -CW

  6. [6] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    And with 4%, Moore catches up. Now almost a dead heat. Things won't settle down until at least 10-20% of vote is in, most likely. At this stage, it's all about which precincts report first, really, which can sway the totals.

    -CW

  7. [7] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    OK, now the data is streaming in. FiveThirtyEight seems to have the fastest-posting site for new data...

    Moore up by 6K votes, 53-46.

    -CW

  8. [8] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Boy, this is a real seesaw of a race. Moore was up by 11K votes, but in the next update, was only up by 2K. 12% reporting so far.

    -CW

  9. [9] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    OK, just took a break to watch news. With over 30% in, Moore is leading by 19K votes. 52-47, with 1.3% write-ins.

    -CW

  10. [10] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Early signs may be showing Moore counties' turnout is down. But few counties have fully reported yet, so it's too early to tell.

    Moore 52, Jones 47, with over 40% in...

    -CW

  11. [11] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Moore takes a 37K vote lead, 52-46. But there's a lot of urban votes left to count, and not so many rural ones...

    -CW

  12. [12] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Moore now up 47K votes. With about 60% in.

    -CW

  13. [13] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Moore up 55K votes, 53-45, with 65% in.

    -CW

  14. [14] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    OK, Moore's lead in the last few minutes slipped from 60K to 38K. It's not over yet, that's for sure.

    -CW

  15. [15] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    With 75% in, Moore's lead continues to slip. Now only 25K votes. down to 51-48 lead...

    -CW

  16. [16] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Moore only up by 6K... looks like a photo finish, folks!

    With 81% in, his lead is now 0.7%.

    -CW

  17. [17] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Moore's lead slips to 133 votes! A lead change could be imminient...

    85% in...

    -CW

  18. [18] 
    Kick wrote:

    Hey there, CW and everybody (anybody?).

    Moore is actually getting his clock cleaned in Jefferson County, and the 20% outstanding votes are in largely large blue counties. This is going to be a close one.

  19. [19] 
    Kick wrote:

    Watch Madison and Jefferson counties. Jones will overtake Moore in 3, 2, 1...

  20. [20] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Very close. The story here, I think, is that Trump was unable to turn out his faithful.

  21. [21] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    With 89% in, Jones takes the lead!

    Up 10K votes, 49.6 to 48.8.

    -CW

  22. [22] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Either way, write-in (a.k.a. unhappy Republican) votes will probably exceed the margin of victory.

  23. [23] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Washington Post calls it for Jones!

    -CW

  24. [24] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Balthasar -

    That is an excellent point!

    Good to see others here...

    :-)

    -CW

  25. [25] 
    Kick wrote:

    Montgomery and Mobile counties also... huge outstanding votes remaining in these big blue strongholds.

    It's basically over for Moore when you check the remaining outstanding votes in Jefferson, Madison, Mobile, and Montgomery.

  26. [26] 
    neilm wrote:

    Well it is being called for Jones. I’m surprised.

  27. [27] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Senate Leadership committee (aka McConnell) reported to be already blaming Bannon.

  28. [28] 
    Kick wrote:

    Balthy
    22

    Either way, write-in (a.k.a. unhappy Republican) votes will probably exceed the margin of victory.

    Yep. Also, about a quarter of Alabama is African American, and there was early exit polling showing that around 30% of them voted in this special election... if accurate polling data, this is much higher than normal demographics.

  29. [29] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Awful for Trump: two endorsements in a row go down in flames in a deep red state. Ouch.

  30. [30] 
    Paula wrote:

    All Hail Alabama!

  31. [31] 
    John M wrote:

    Don't you ever get tired of being WRONG Michale?

    Say it together with me: SENATOR DOUG JONES

    Not only did the Democrat win, a PRO CHOICE Democrat won.

  32. [32] 
    Bclancy wrote:

    “Once again, I think it's so cute that ya'all pay attention to polls... :D

    It's abundantly clear that the ONLY "poll" that Trump supporters use is the one at the ballot box..

    So, all the polls that ya'all love to quote ONLY reflect the choices of those who don't support President Trump..”

    -Michale

    Prescient as always ;) Though to be fair, I didn’t think Jones would win. I’m pretty sure most people here didn’t either.

  33. [33] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Kick [28]: if the reporting I've heard tonight is right, that turnout number might be even higher.

    A good example of what inroads a centrist candidate and vigorous GOTV effort could accomplish in even Red States..

    ..and what a disaster Bannon's "let's run a nut" strategy can result in.

  34. [34] 
    Kick wrote:

    Balthy
    29

    Awful for Trump: two endorsements in a row go down in flames in a deep red state. Ouch.

    It doesn't get Moore Strange than that, now does it? Who will Trump blame for all this "winning"?

  35. [35] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    PROGRAM NOTE:

    An actual column has now been posted here. You may have to get your browser to refresh or reload to see it.

    -CW

  36. [36] 
    Paula wrote:

    Dems rejected DT from day one. What's amazing is how high the intensity remains. The resistance has resisted and resisted and resisted. This win will fuel yet more resistance -- it's HUGE in that sense.

    And, as in Virginia, it seems the Dem GOTV/ground games are improving. Less money on TV ads, more money on other efforts. Lots of help from out-of-state -- phone banking, postcards and donations. Among the spontaneous uprisings post 2016 were groups offering ways for people in blue states to help fellow-dems in red states. Those efforts seem to be paying off.

    Very encouraging. It's not just grassroots enthusiasm, its SMART grassroots activism.

  37. [37] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    If enough voters turn out, then anything is possible.

    Word! But Paula also adds a important point:

    It's not just grassroots enthusiasm, its SMART grassroots activism.

    Exactly, for instance the Indivisible movement.

    I'm also a great believer in the "50 State strategy".

  38. [38] 
    neilm wrote:

    Moore didn't have the guts to stand up and take it like a man. He's going to either wimp out tomorrow when the cameras aren't on him, or pointlessly battle until nobody is paying attention any longer and it just gets called for Jones.

    I should not have expected anything more from this horrible little man.

  39. [39] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Defecting Republican write-ins did Moore in. This not the first time somebody has been knocked senseless by a H.S. yearbook. Those things are heavy, especially the vintage ones. What a pleasant surprise. Can't wait to read the Trump Tweets.

  40. [40] 
    neilm wrote:

    As we say in Britain at these times, "Remember Agincourt"

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Agincourt

  41. [41] 
    neilm wrote:
  42. [42] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Another point that has to be addressed:

    Last night my brother & I had a conversation about the MeToo movement and an unexpected side issue: the guys who had completely denied any wrongdoing, and called their accusers liars, had actually fared better than those who tried to apologize and move on. At least that was his perception.

    Maybe this Moore win will stick a bit of a pin in that. Had Moore won tonight, the conventional wisdom might have been that republicans, and Trump voters specifically, are simply unmoved by these sorts of accusations. Maybe the particular things that Moore were accused of hit a nerve in the electorate, and certainly Moore's conduct before those accusations were ever made also played a role, but it is evident now that those accusations had a significant effect on tonight's election results.

    That will encourage some to ratchet up the pressure for Trump to answer to his accusers. And what an irony it would be for that, rather than traitorous collusion with an international adversary, to be the thing that ends up hurting Trump politically the most.

  43. [43] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Stig: Trump already tweeted congrats to Jones, and mentioned infra the write-in vote. Shelby will take some shots from the Bannon/Trump folks, I expect.

  44. [44] 
    neilm wrote:

    A president who'd all but call a senator a whore is unfit to clean toilets in Obama's presidential library or to shine George W. Bush's shoes: Our view

    USA Today Editorial Board

    Wow!

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/12/12/trump-lows-ever-hit-rock-bottom-editorials-debates/945947001/

  45. [45] 
    neilm wrote:

    That tweet from 45 really looks manufactured for him - it is too articulate and doesn't have any nasty little barbs.

  46. [46] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    P.S.: Speaking of Trump tweets, he's very fortunate that the shock of the Alabama result will fill airtime that might have otherwise be spent on outrage over Trump calling Kirsten Gillibrand a slut.

  47. [47] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    neilm [44-45]: we seem to have had the exact same two thoughts at the same time. In the second instance, I agree: that last Trump tweet tried to, but didn't read like one of his. Maybe we'll see in the morning what he really thinks.

  48. [48] 
    TheStig wrote:

    42- Mud plus poor French crowd control.

    43- Trump took the high road. That is a surprise!

    45- I've had similar thoughts about possible ghost writing. Somebody, somewhere, must be running Trump Tweets through style recognition software to spot probable fakes.

  49. [49] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Somebody, somewhere, must be running Trump Tweets through style recognition software to spot probable fakes.

    Not really necessary. Now that I've caught up on the TV commentary, it appears that we're not alone - everyone who's mentioned it has said that it doesn't read like a real Trump tweet.

    I'd guess Dan Scavino.

  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    RUSSIAN COLLUSION!!!!

    That's the only reason Jones won!!!

    He colluded with Putin!!!!!!

    :D

    I bet Franken and Conyers are fit to be tied right now!! :D

  51. [51] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    I bet Franken and Conyers are fit to be tied right now!

    Why? Moore lost. Sounds like a good day for Franken.

  52. [52] 
    Michale wrote:

    Why? Moore lost. Sounds like a good day for Franken.

    Because the reason Franken (and Conyers) were forced out is so Dumbocrats can at least have SOME semblance of the moral high ground..

    With Moore not in the Senate, there was no political reason why Franken and Conyers had to go..

    You yourself conceded that politics was the reason for the ouster...

  53. [53] 
    Michale wrote:

    For the hysterical Dumbocrats who think that the Alabama win actually means anything for the 2018 elections??

    Ya'all are deluding yourselves...

    This is the epitome of an outlier...

  54. [54] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Balthasar -49

    Even Leo da Vinci didn't do all the work on his famous masterpieces - he used apprentices too!

    I'm coining the term "Designated Shitter" to describe a ghost writer filling in @realdonaldtrump. Which, in all honesty, should be rebranded @realdonaldtrumpwithaddedfillers.

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's actually kind of hilarious when ya think about it.

    Hysterical Democrats are cheering the election of an old white guy, while spending the last few years castigating and demonizing old white guys...

    Once again.. It's ALL about the -D after the person's name... Nothing else matters...

  56. [56] 
    neilm wrote:

    45's supporters are so tired of winning they decided to lose to see what it was like again.

    Only explanation.

    I mean, they ran the perfect candidate.

  57. [57] 
    neilm wrote:

    TS [54] Now that was funny :)

  58. [58] 
    Michale wrote:

    I mean, they ran the perfect candidate.

    Exactly..

    It's the candidate that lost the race.. There is absolutely no meaning in Jones' win beyond the fact that Moore was a crappy candidate...

    Much like ya'all claimed when Scott Brown won MASS... "Nothing to see here. Coakley was a crappy candidate.. That's it"

    I am glad you and I can agree on this.. :D

  59. [59] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Morning neilm. Another early riser.

    RE Trump ghost writers: a reworked cliche...

    "You have to get up pretty early in the morning to be Donald Trump."

    Dec 13, 2017 06:22:04 AM The reason I originally endorsed Luther Strange (and his numbers went up mightily), is that I said Roy Moore will not be able to win the General Election. I was right! Roy worked hard but the deck was stacked against him!

    Nice use of "mightily" and "I was right!" - but where is the bile and inflated sense of entitlement? I rate this one dubious....but a rich Saudi Prince just might pay to much for it.

  60. [60] 
    neilm wrote:

    TS [59] I agree - these are pale imitations - no way would he have reminded everybody he lost twice in Alabama by bringing up Luther Strange - first in the primary then in the election.

    He'd have blamed "Fake News" and probably worked in some "collusion" angle between the "loser media" and the Democrats.

  61. [61] 
    neilm wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    Moore will win Alabama and the Jags will win the Super Bowl.. :D

    Well there is still hope for the Jags.

  62. [62] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yes there is.. :D

    But let's face it. You thought Moore was going to win too.. That's why you didn't want to make a prediction. :D

  63. [63] 
    Michale wrote:

    He'd have blamed "Fake News" and probably worked in some "collusion" angle between the "loser media" and the Democrats.

    There was collusion between Jones and Putin..

    This is fact...

  64. [64] 
    neilm wrote:

    But let's face it. You thought Moore was going to win too.. That's why you didn't want to make a prediction. :D

    I did make a prediction, and I was within 2% points for both candidates :)

  65. [65] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's funny.. Moore winning would have actually been BETTER for the Dims in 2018....

    Now they got nothing but their dicks in their hands.. :D

  66. [66] 
    neilm wrote:

    Now they got nothing but their dicks in their hands.. :D

    ... and one of the three Senate seats they need to flip it to "D" - one that they never expected and that isn't up util 2020.

  67. [67] 
    Michale wrote:

    ... and one of the three Senate seats they need to flip it to "D" - one that they never expected and that isn't up util 2020.

    No, they don't.. Not for months yet.. And when it's discovered that Jones colluded with Putin, as the facts show, then the seat will revert to Moore...

    :D

  68. [68] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    If it wasn't for the dire consequences it would be entertaining to observe the arguments by those that want a tombstone versus those that want a monument.

    Just like those littering signs that say "The house you flood may be your own", the grave you think you are digging for the "other side" of the Big Money duopoly may be your own.

    Go ahead, keep digging. But remember, the map you are following is the fake treasure map from City Slickers 2.

  69. [69] 
    neilm wrote:

    If it wasn't for the dire consequences it would be entertaining to observe the arguments by those that want a tombstone versus those that want a monument.

    You know a lot of poor and hard done to people motivated themselves in a state where they had lost 25 years in a row to believe in Doug Jones, and all you can do is grind your ax and claim that all he cares about is rich people and campaign contributions.

    Show some decency Don.

  70. [70] 
    neilm wrote:

    Jones colluded with Putin, as the facts show

    Definition: Michale fact
    noun
    plural noun: steaming piles of BS

    - a thing that has no basis in reality
    example use: "the most common Michale fact is that everybody else is partisan and he is the only independent"

    Antonym: reality

  71. [71] 
    TheStig wrote:
  72. [72] 
    Michale wrote:

    - a thing that has no basis in reality
    example use: "the most common Michale fact is that everybody else is partisan and he is the only independent"

    The "facts" that support Jones/Putin collusion are as viable and as "factual" as the facts that support Trump/Putin collusion..

    That's the point you just refuse to get...

  73. [73] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    neilm-
    "Show some decency Don."
    The same could be said for the Big Money Democrats and their supporters.

    I didn't leave the cake out in the rain, I'm just pointing it out.

    "Macartur's Park is melting in the dark
    All the sweet green icing flowing down
    Someone left the cake out in the rain
    I don't think that I can take it
    "Cause it took so long to bake it
    And I'll never have that recipe again
    Oh, no."
    -Macarthur Park

  74. [74] 
    neilm wrote:

    That's the point you just refuse to get...

    Well since there is a Republican President, a Republican House, a Republican Senate, a Republican Governor in Alabama, a Republican State House in Alabama, and a Republican State Senate in Alabama they can use the evidence you can't point out to appoint an investigator into the Putin/Alabama links.

    Sadly for you, the only evidence is the tweet monitoring of known Russian handles that were tweeting links to Roy Moore's web site.

    I know, you lost again. Your infallible President lost again. The real evidence of collusion is coming out. You can't handle the truth. We understand.

  75. [75] 
    Michale wrote:

    The real evidence of collusion is coming out.

    Yea, you keep saying that..

    And yet, there are NO FACTS that prove what you say is "true"...

    :D

  76. [76] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    What Neil means, Michale, is that eventually Mueller will produce a report. Mueller's been criticized for indicting witnesses as he goes along, but I think that he's doing that because he wants their testimony under oath to be in the public record, y'know, just because Trump has that famous catch phrase.

    Mueller is in this respect like a quarterback under pressure, moving the ball on the ground, but keeping open the option for a lateral pass, perhaps to the NY Atty General, in case his pocket starts to collapse.

    My guess is that we'll see several more indictments before the Mueller Report is presented to the public. That way, firing him, or greeting his report with a Bronx cheer, won't halt the investigation - it'd just move it to another spot downfield.

  77. [77] 
    neilm wrote:

    I'm assuming Mueller is counting on three scenarios:

    1. He is in place throughout and 45 can't pardon everybody involved.

    2. He is fired and somebody else needs to take it over - possible after the 2018 elections

    3. 45 gets away with pardoning everybody, so he hits them with state charges

    Given that we are moving into AML territory 45 and the family really need to worry about the NY state charges that can be brought since a lot of the DB activity will be thru NYC locations.

  78. [78] 
    neilm wrote:

    But there is already evidence of collusion and coverups appearing - emails from Russians to Don Jr. - meetings with Russians that everybody forgot about, etc.

    Mueller is just going to put all the pieces together into a picture - could be just stupidity but nothing illegal (these are not very smart people after all), or it could be something more damaging.

    If you want to see how the picture looks at the moment I strongly recommend "Collusion" by Luke Harding.

  79. [79] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    neilm

    Good to find out about how the OMG affects the PDQ, but you need to consider the ASAP and its effect on the WTFLGBT and the XYZ.

    You (and others) could give us oldtimers a break on the code lingo, often we don't know what the hell we're talking about.

  80. [80] 
    neilm wrote:

    Good to find out about how the OMG affects the PDQ, but you need to consider the ASAP and its effect on the WTFLGBT and the XYZ.

    Sorry - too many years on Wall St.

    AML - anti-money laundering
    DB - Deutsche Bank
    NYC (you probably knew) - New York City

  81. [81] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    could be just stupidity but nothing illegal (these are not very smart people after all), or it could be something more damaging.

    It is interesting to hear Steve Schmidt and Nicolle Wallace discuss this in relation to their own experiences in the McCain campaign.

    Wallace, for instance, says she would have been 'surprised' to see any Russians at all anywhere near the campaign.

    Schmidt, who was McCain's campaign manager, says he was never even approached by the Russians, and would have referred any emails like the ones Don Jr. got to the authorities.

    Similar things have been said by former staffers in the Bush, Gore, and Romney campaigns.

    By comparison, investigators have uncovered at least 31 different contacts and 19 meetings between the Trump campaign and the Russians (most of whom had connections to Russian intelligence).

    You'd have to have the intelligence of a basketball not to see the problem with that.

  82. [82] 
    Michale wrote:

    What Neil means, Michale, is that eventually Mueller will produce a report.

    Then why can't ya'all shut up until he does??

    Then, at least, ya'all will actually have some FACTS...

  83. [83] 
    Michale wrote:

    I mean, seriously.. If ya'all stopped with the hysterical PTDS, this place would be a LOT more pleasant...

  84. [84] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    neilm [40] -

    With a two-finger salute, I assume... to show your bow-drawing fingers are intact!

    Heh. Took me forever to figure out the origins of the British two fingers...

    neilm [44] -

    Yeah, that editorial could blister paint at 50 feet. And from the normally neutral USA Today, that's quite a read...

    neilm [45] -

    For me, it's not an Authentic Trump Tweet unless there is Random use of Capitalization as well as (bizarre parenthetical asides) and "improper use" of quotes (scare quotes or not, there's just no rhyme or reason to them).

    That's how you spot the genuine article!

    Heh.

    TheStig [54] -

    BWAH hah hah! Now that was funny!

    Heh.

    TheStig [59] -

    "You have to get up pretty early in the morning to be Donald Trump."

    That was pretty funny, too. I wonder why we're all in such a good mood?

    Heh.

    As for that tweet, well, it's got random caps (General Election) and a bizarre parenthetical, but no random quotes. Two out of three ain't bad, I bet it really was Trump.

    :-)

    Nice use of "mightily" even if completely false, though, you're right.

    Michale [various] -

    Go ahead and just admit it. Christmas came early for the Democrats. But it's only one seat, so maybe 2018 won't be a Democratic wave.

    How's that for reality?

    :-)

    -CW

  85. [85] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale -

    Also, with the acronyms, why not revert to the historical norm? It was "BDS" and then "ODS" so now it should be "TDS" right? "President Trump Derangement Syndrome" is too much of a mouthful, and it also is too close to PTSD...

    Just a thought..

    -CW

  86. [86] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale (clarification) -

    I'm not saying don't use it, please understand, just be consistent with the last two presidents, that's all. It'd be easier on the eyes and easier to decipher.

    -CW

  87. [87] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Yeah, then there's 'Clinton Derangement Syndrome', which is a long-lasting, chronic condition with no known cure. It can only be managed.

    Warning: could lead to twitter and reddit abuse and possible addiction.

  88. [88] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Balthasar [87] -

    Ooooh, forgot about that one -- it seems to come back around repeatedly, you're right. Good point.

    -CW

  89. [89] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Maybe if Moore hadn't thought that he could use the "Trump defense" (accusing all of his accusers of lying) he might have fared better. While it seemed to keep willingly blind and deaf partisans in his camp, for others it strained his credibility too far, even for Alabamans (Alabamians?).

    We've seen this before: only Trump can wear the Trump armor. For some reason, his peculiar combination of ignorance and attitude shield him from things that would end the careers of other men.

    But as Neil's Agincourt example demonstrates, even the best armor can be pierced eventually, or even become a hindrance when the shit gets sufficiently deep.

  90. [90] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Even more to the point: Republicans must be shocked tonight to realize that, coming into a midterms in which their historic dominance of the government is likely to erode, the President and head of their party has no coattails at all. So far, no candidate that he endorsed has won. All year. That's sobering when you think that endorsements and appearances are all that a president can do during midterm seasons.

    It wouldn't be the first time that a party shunned its titular leader at midterms time. It seems to be a trend, actually, as both Bush and Obama had their turns being 'uninvited' by nervous candidates during midterms season for various reasons.

    But it also means that Republicans probably don't need to fear Trump and his evil id, Bannon as much politically as they'd expected. Bannon's threat to primary every moderate Republican in sight is less of a worry after the fiasco in Alabama, and the most often heard phrase about Bannon being heard tonight is "overrated". If that continues, it's going to change the way that Republicans run their campaigns next year, and perhaps even which Republicans run next year.

  91. [91] 
    Michale wrote:

    Also, with the acronyms, why not revert to the historical norm? It was "BDS" and then "ODS" so now it should be "TDS" right? "President Trump Derangement Syndrome" is too much of a mouthful, and it also is too close to PTSD...

    Ya'all's hysteria over President Trump is in a class all it's own..

    It's only fitting that the acronym be special as well. :D

  92. [92] 
    Michale wrote:

    Go ahead and just admit it. Christmas came early for the Democrats. But it's only one seat, so maybe 2018 won't be a Democratic wave.

    How's that for reality?

    I don't see it that way and neither should you..

    Put another way.. It would have been a LOT better for the Demcorat Party if Moore had one..

    I mean, just by looking at the precedent that Democrats have established..

    All it's going to take to remove Democrats from Congress is 6-8 accusations of sexual impropriety...

    Think about it.. :D

  93. [93] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ya'all also need to keep in mind one salient point.

    Doug Jones is a Democrat in the reddest of red states...

    If he wants even the SLIGHTEST chance of keeping his seat, he is going to have to work with Republicans more than Democrats...

    You see, this is EXACTLY ya'all's issue.. You simply CAN'T see past the -D.....

Comments for this article are closed.