• Alabama Special Election Senate Thread - Dec. 12, 2017. - DOUG JONES WINS -
    828 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Bob The Knob;52971200][img]https://i.imgur.com/HBfaEj9.png[/img] That 8%[/QUOTE] [I]"he shares my ideals!"[/I]
[QUOTE=YouWithTheFace.;52971198]few key tweets from 538 -tweets-[/QUOTE] So more Moore-voters believe they're true than Jones-voters who believe they're not true. That's... Weird.
Well that went about as well as I expected. Good job Alabama! /s :terrists: whoops I called it too soon
[QUOTE=shad0w440;52971224]Well that went about as well as I expected. Good job Alabama! /s :terrists:[/QUOTE] What? The votes are still being counted.
Is it technically correct to use the title "Judge" for Roy Moore? He is not a current judge. It's traditional to use a former title for someone who retired, eg. retired military officers are usually styled like "Captain (ret) John Doe". But, that rule doesn't apply to people who were removed, or more generally, to people who retired in disgrace - military personnel who received a dishonorable discharge don't get to keep the style. Moore was removed from office once, and resigned before he could be removed a second time, and he resigned while he was suspended. I would argue that counts as "disgraced". Yet news usage seems to be mixed. Plenty of sources are calling him "Judge Roy Moore", and of course he styles himself that way. Others don't. I'm sure the actual usage is determined by politics, but what do the style guides say? Or any official rules, if they exist?
Still really really fucking early But Doug Jones is starting, very slowly, and very narrowly, to pull ahead. Could still fall back. [url]https://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/alabama-senate-special-election-roy-moore-doug-jones?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=b-lede-package-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news#eln-forecast-section[/url] [media]https://twitter.com/ForecasterEnten/status/940757582536421376[/media] [t]https://i.imgur.com/nJjq176.png[/t]
Early results rarely matter, they're for precincts with like 200 people in them, often ones with a rather specific demographic that tends to hold a hefty bias towards one side or the other. That Jones is fairly consistently winning them is good news, though hardly an indicator of much.
My palms are sweating waiting for this shit.
I'd start making predictions when it hits around 25% precincts reporting in tbh
[QUOTE=Thom12255;52971148][url]https://www.politico.com/interactives/elections/2017/alabama/special-election/dec-12/?cmpid=sf[/url] [img]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DQ41i_WXUAQMmW7.jpg:large[/img][/QUOTE] Dat troll, i saw this coming out of work before i started my drive through the snow and ice (sorry the south)
[QUOTE=The Rifleman;52971241]My palms are sweating waiting for this shit.[/QUOTE] Go watch TV or play a video game, and wait like an hour before you come back to the polls. S'bad for your health to just sit on 'em
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;52971251]Go watch TV or play a video game, and wait like an hour before you come back to the polls. S'bad for your health to just sit on 'em[/QUOTE] Working on my lab report due tomorrow, got 5 hours of sleep in the past like 48 cause finals. This is the least of my worries but I can't help my refresh a lot.
Super close elections are the worst [editline]13th December 2017[/editline] Jones' lead in the Upshot forecast has started to fade
Yup. Moore is gonna get a major lead in the coming 30ish minutes, probably. Might hit 60-65%, as the mid-sized rural counties start reporting in. Then once Birmingham, Mobile, Montgomery and Tuscalosacosatoasta starts reporting properly, it'll swing back into balance.
I am consistently amazed at how close elections can be, even when it feels like a choice is obvious. Just looking at the graphs of the votes coming in is making my palms sweaty
[QUOTE=icemaz;52971268]I am consistently amazed at how close elections can be, even when it feels like a choice is obvious. Just looking at the graphs of the votes coming in is making my palms sweaty[/QUOTE] If Moore wins, we can conclusively say that being a sexual predator is a winning trait in U.S. elections.
[QUOTE=icemaz;52971268]I am consistently amazed at how close elections can be, even when it feels like a choice is obvious. Just looking at the graphs of the votes coming in is making my palms sweaty[/QUOTE] Recent elections are some of the most thrilling spectator sports. [QUOTE=Riller;52971274]If Moore wins, we can conclusively say that being a sexual predator is a winning trait in U.S. elections.[/QUOTE] Except in Hollywood.
[QUOTE=icemaz;52971268]I am consistently amazed at how close elections can be, even when it feels like a choice is obvious. Just looking at the graphs of the votes coming in is making my palms sweaty[/QUOTE] That's partisan politics for ya. I don't know if zero parties or many parties would be better than the other, but either option is better than two parties as neither option really allows for this sort of us V them mentality. With no parties there is no 'them' to be against, and with many parties there's too many 'thems' to be against for us V them to get any traction.
[QUOTE=icemaz;52971268]I am consistently amazed at how close elections can be, even when it feels like a choice is obvious. Just looking at the graphs of the votes coming in is making my palms sweaty[/QUOTE] Amazed or appauled because we have reached such a level of tribalism that we can't even agree on what universe we all inhabit (Its mirror world #345 right?)
[QUOTE=shad0w440;52971276]Recent elections are some of the most thrilling spectator sports. [/quote] Politics and litigation are two of the most expensive, most thrilling sports observable by humankind.
[QUOTE=Bob The Knob;52971200][img]https://i.imgur.com/HBfaEj9.png[/img] That 8%[/QUOTE] I'm not even surprised anymore. From the very start I've expected Moore to win just because he's the shittiest human being in the running.
God damn just watched the politico live results jump Jones from ~38% to 48.6
[QUOTE=TestECull;52971279]That's partisan politics for ya. I don't know if zero parties or many parties would be better than the other, but either option is better than two parties as neither option really allows for this sort of us V them mentality. With no parties there is no 'them' to be against, and with many parties there's too many 'thems' to be against for us V them to get any traction.[/QUOTE] Parlamentery "party voting" might break us out of our gridlock but congress is absolutely not set up for a viable parlament of parties
[QUOTE=Sableye;52971288]Parlamentery "party voting" might break us out of our gridlock but congress is absolutely not set up for a viable parlament of parties[/QUOTE] It's less Congress' setup and more the election system itself. Our election system is designed in such a way that two parties are inevitable.
Moore will almost definitely win. Alabama's supreme court has ruled that election officials can scrub digital records of the election immediately after it's over, overruling a previous attempt by a lower court to prevent that. Coincidentally, large numbers of black voters who voted last year are showing up as "inactive" and being forced to vote provisionally. We will never know the true vote count; Alabama conservatives have already seen to it.
[QUOTE=Judas;52971158]Even if (and lets be real, he probably will) Roy wins, it isnt a good sign for the GOP that a senate race in fucking alabama is this close.[/QUOTE] Yeah, I dunno. If being a child molester who romanticizes the days of slave ownership, supports the eradication of voting rights for minorities and women, the eradication of federal judiciaries, the eradication of checks and balances on the power of the president, and the repeal of every other amendment after the 10th isn't enough to cause the GOP base to not vote for you, then I'd say Roy Moore was pretty damn good news for the GOP. Roy Moore lets the GOP know that they can do [B]anything[/B], and their loyal base will still support them.
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;52971245]I'd start making predictions when it hits around 25% precincts reporting in tbh[/QUOTE] We're a third of the way in, and according to NYT: Moore: 53.2% Jones: 45.4% I'd have to put my money on Moore, to be honest. I expect him to asspull a Trump-Esque victory at the last second that saves his skin.
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;52971304]We're a third of the way in, and according to NYT: Moore: 53.2% Jones: 45.4% I'd have to put my money on Moore, to be honest. I expect him to asspull a Trump-Esque victory at the last second that saves his skin.[/QUOTE] A third of [I]precincts[/I], not a third of voters. Almost none of the dense, urban precincts have reported yet. Those are the classic democratic areas.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52971298]Yeah, I dunno. If being a child molester who romanticizes the days of slave ownership, supports the eradication of voting rights for minorities and women, the eradication of federal judiciaries, the eradication of checks and balances on the power of the president, and the repeal of every other amendment after the 10th isn't enough to cause the GOP base to not vote for you, then I'd say Roy Moore was pretty damn good news for the GOP. Roy Moore lets the GOP know that they can do [B]anything[/B], and their loyal base will still support them.[/QUOTE] The man outright suggested that America was the "focus of evil" and all of these supposed FREEDOM lovin 'Mericans didn't even bat an eye.
I can't say that I'm particularly surprised with the results thus far, but I will say I'm certainly disappointed. Look at all the shit (most of it deservedly) Chris Christie got yet Moore is a thousand times worse, but still gets voted for. In before Jones pulls it around and I look like a butthole. (Please please please)
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.