Confused about the alabama special election results

Unitedwestand13 said:

Who knows, maybe the people of Alabama will want to keep Jones around.

Click to expand...

Anything is possible. Things change. But Alabama voters would have to change far more drastically than it ever has for that to be true. (Or the GOP to nominate Moore again). Especially unlikely considering that unlike the coastal states where demographics are constantly changing, migration into and out of Alabama is basically stagnant.

Anagram said:

Anything is possible. Things change. But Alabama voters would have to change far more drastically than it ever has for that to be true. (Or the GOP to nominate Moore again). Especially unlikely considering that unlike the coastal states where demographics are constantly changing, migration into and out of Alabama is basically stagnant.

Click to expand...

But at least the voters of Alabama gave Doug Jones a chance

Anagram said:

Yeah, I think the suburb votes were more because of Moore though. In 2016 in Texas, North Carolina, and Georgia, (as well as most places in the country), even while it was a horrific night for Democrats, suburbs almost universally trended blue. Democrats one Atlanta, Houston, Austin, San Antonio, and Raleigh suburbs they haven't won in years. If that wasn't just a one year Trump fluke, (and for what it's worth they pretty much repeated those margins in suburbs of Virginia and New Jersey this year), that was a fairly good sign for Democrats last year.

On the other hand, margins in and around Huntsville, Birmingham, Montgomery, and Mobile barely budged in 2016. I'm thinking this is a pretty Moore specific thing that happened tonight.

Click to expand...

I'd opine the suburban vote is also reflective of Trump's problems with suburban women, particularly with the moderate Republican women often seen in the suburbs of even northern Democratic Party cities.

Trump's been burning a lot of bridges, as he embraces his Bannon base.

Chomsky said:

I'd opine the suburban vote is also reflective of Trump's problems with suburban women, particularly with the moderate Republican women often seen in the suburbs of even northern Democratic Party cities.

Trump's been burning a lot of bridges, as he embraces his Bannon base.

Click to expand...

Bannon took a huge hit from this. Moore was his man from the start. Trump does not like losers either, they remind him what a loser he is.

Chomsky said:

I'd opine the suburban vote is also reflective of Trump's problems with suburban women, particularly with the moderate Republican women often seen in the suburbs of even northern Democratic Party cities.

Trump's been burning a lot of bridges, as he embraces his Bannon base.

Click to expand...

Could have been true nationwide in 2016 when a lot of suburbs lurched left. I don't think it's true here though. Alabama suburbs were static last year. And while maybe their thoughts about Trump shifted much later than suburbs elsewhere, I think it's more likely Democrats caught the rare break of having an already controversial opponent who was also accused of child molestation by most of his own party. That's not going to happen often.

I'm not sure Trump had much to do with tonight's result and wouldn't use it to help predict any of the coming races.

Anagram said:

There's a fairly good chance that Republicans do well in or maybe even sweep New England governorships even in a horrible year for them. Which wouldn't exactly be unprecedented since they almost did that in the blue wave of 2006. Scott, Baker, and Sununu look strong. Raimondo and Malloy are incredibly unpopular. And Maine is always weird.

Click to expand...

Good point to bring up Gov. Raimondo of RI, who fixed RI's pension problems for the time being, that she inherited, and upset the teacher unions. Similar to a previously popular Gov. Christie.

I see our Nation as having 5 or so provinces now with elections, with the NE being quite volatile, favoring GOPs for governorships, double digit CDs up for grabs, such as both NH DEMs, and lots of GOPs in NY and NJ, with a few DEMs also.

IMHO, DEMs are spreading themselves awfully thin with too many House targets, 91 now, while GOPs have less targets to go after strongly, like two of them in Nevada.

I'm watching to see GOPs try and make politics local. For me, it's still about the state houses, senates and governorships, and the success of the Obama/Holder redistricting effort, as Gov. Walker lamented about ...

Anagram said:

Could have been true nationwide in 2016 when a lot of suburbs lurched left. I don't think it's true here though. Alabama suburbs were static last year. And while maybe their thoughts about Trump shifted much later than suburbs elsewhere, I think it's more likely Democrats caught the rare break of having an already controversial opponent who was also accused of child molestation by most of his own party. That's not going to happen often.

I'm not sure Trump had much to do with tonight's result and wouldn't use it to help predict any of the coming races.

Click to expand...

Oh, I'm not denying Dem's caught a break, a confluence of rare events.

But I am saying that Trump contributed to it, with the suburban women being one group.

Trump won Alabama handily, yet his approval there is only 48%. I suspect it's even less among women.