Doug Jones beats Roy Moore

[Mr Bean]

He barely won... but he did win

Montgomery, Alabama (CNN)Democrat Doug Jones has scored a stunning win against Republican Roy Moore to win the Senate seat in Alabama, CNN projects.
The dramatic win comes after allegations against Moore of sexually abusing teens and his history of controversial comments about women and minorities. It will be enough for a reliably red state to elect its first Democratic senator in a generation.
A Jones win will trim the Republican Senate majority to 51-49 and deals a major blow to President Donald Trump, who has backed Moore amid the national conversation over sexual misconduct.

Exit polls were virtually split as to whether voters believed the allegations against Moore: 49% said they were probably or definitely true while 45% said they were probably or definitely false. A majority of the electorate, 57%, decided who to support before news of Moore's alleged child molestation and sexual assault broke in November.

Well this has been a nice interesting evening. Tomorrow morning is going to be better.

[Darth Yan]

This is a good thing. Jones will have the seat for a long time, and for the first time in years a Dem has won in alabama

[Elheru Aran]

Already posted in the other Roy Moore thread. Maybe this can be merged?

[Ace Pace]

If this was covered outside the states, "Pro-slavery racist bigot nominee gathered a huge percentage of the vote despite losing"

What the fuck U.S.

[Khaat]

If this was covered outside the states, "Pro-slavery racist bigot nominee gathered a huge percentage of the vote despite losing"

What the fuck U.S.

Observations from my limited time in the South (I was a kid 5-8 years old, it was South Carolina):
1) there's still a tension between "romantic pre-CW times" racist whites and pretty much every black person alive
2) there's a strong "it is God's Will" element in most every thing these bigoted assholes do and say that conveniently skips over "and the South lost, as God willed it, the war to keep slaves". The disconnect is jarring
3) for all the Bible-thumping and Jesus-chatter, they're really more Old Testament, where slaves were legit (they can be seriously pouty about it), and forgiving enemies came after you took your eye-for-an-eye
4) being poor and white was still better than being black because "reasons"
5) most everyone talked tough, but even bullies expected you to just run; once you called their bluff, they didn't know what to do

The Moore voters, though, are mostly 2 & 3, I think.

[The Romulan Republic]

If this was covered outside the states, "Pro-slavery racist bigot nominee gathered a huge percentage of the vote despite losing"

What the fuck U.S.

You forgot "child molester".

And yeah, I see your point, but...

Its Alabama. Alabama is, typically, appalling even by the low standards of American politics in general. The state's motto could easily be "Alabama: Proudly Standing Against Civil Rights Since The Civil War."

So, the delighted surprise at a sane person winning by one percent is not so much a reflection of America generally in this case, as it is the specific part of America where this happened. I wouldn't have expected a blue win in Alabama even in a Democratic wave to rival the Republican one in 2010.

In just about any other part of the Western World, someone like Roy Moore coming this close would be an alarming step in the wrong direction. In Alabama, sad to say, its a borderline-miraculous step in the RIGHT direction.

Plus... people need a bit of hope to boost their moral, given everything else that's happening in our politics right now. God knows I did. Maybe this will even remind people that yes, their votes do still mean something. Because while Roy Moore was an exceptionally horribly person even by Republican standards, if we can win in Alabama, we have a chance pretty much anywhere, and 2018 is suddenly looking a lot more hopeful.

[The Romulan Republic]

From the Daily Show's Facebook page:

"Roy Moore is demanding a recount hoping they'll find out she was 20."

[JI_Joe84]

Mitch McConnell is saying Jones should not be seated until after the Tax vote, does this McConnell guy even know how gov. works? Or does he just think things happen when and if they are convenient for him? Because that is what it seems at this point.

[Dragon Angel]

McConnell was the one who spearheaded the Senate Republicans' blockade of Obama picking a successor to Justice Scalia, so the idea of "smooth and proper governmental process" is an idea that is only abided by when it is convenient for him.

[The Romulan Republic]

McConnell is one of the most shamelessly partisan scumbags in the country. His only rule seems to be "what currently benefits the Republican Party/Republican agenda".

[The Romulan Republic]

Welp, they've officially confirmed Doug Jones' win.

Cowboy Roman Polanski* is still trying to contest it, alledging voter fraud.

*Sorry, can't take credit for that one. All credit to Trevor Noah on the Daily Show.

[Tribble]

Welp, they've officially confirmed Doug Jones' win.

Cowboy Roman Polanski* is still trying to contest it, alledging voter fraud.

*Sorry, can't take credit for that one. All credit to Trevor Noah on the Daily Show.

No surprise there, these days any Democract victory is probably going to be seen as solely due to voter fraud by the Republicans.

[The Romulan Republic]

Which says really scary things about the future viability of our (semi) democratic government, as long as one of the major parties remains on this course.

Though, to be fair, I'd probably suspect the same if the Republicans win in 2018. With far more justification, I think, but the point remains- democracy depends on the voters having a certain level of trust in the integrity of the democratic process. That we don't have that any more has really terrifying long-term implications for us as a society.

[Broomstick]

I'd be more concerned if I hadn't seen how the Nixon resignation rocked US confidence - the country got past it. It's scary, and it is concerning, but it's not writ in stone that the US democracy is doomed.

[The Romulan Republic]

Yeah, but there's a difference between a President resigning, and large segments, possibly a majority, of the electorate considering it a matter of ideology that if the other side wins, it must be fraudulent. Only one of those is a direct repudiation of the democratic system of government.

Though, there is a prior case in American history where a sizeable portion of the country refused to accept an election result they didn't like. These days, its referred to as "The Civil War". We got past that too- for a price tag of 600,000+ dead.

Hopefully it won't be that bad this time around, but I'm really not sure Nixon compares.

Actually, though, there is another possible parallel- Al Gore's loss in 2000. The Left didn't rise in revolution over that. Though that was (at the time) a one-off, rather than a case of both parties growing increasingly skeptical of any result they don't win, as a generally matter.

[Broomstick]

Yeah, but there's a difference between a President resigning, and large segments, possibly a majority, of the electorate considering it a matter of ideology that if the other side wins, it must be fraudulent. Only one of those is a direct repudiation of the democratic system of government.

That resignation resulted in a president in the White House that no one elected - trust me, people were freaking out. Ford gets a lot of knocks, but really, we could have wound up with much, much worse that someone who essentially kept the seat warm until the next election and didn't do a whole lot to rock the boat. Ford was not elected, he was appointed, and appointed by a PotUS that was discredited and essentially forced to resign. Tell me, how would you feel if Pence was removed (for whatever reason), Trump appointed a replacement VP, and that Trump-appointee wound up in the Oval Office? Would that inspire confidence in you, or something else.

But yeah, your point about the US Civil War is very valid and an example of a worser scenario.

[The Romulan Republic]

Yeah, but there's a difference between a President resigning, and large segments, possibly a majority, of the electorate considering it a matter of ideology that if the other side wins, it must be fraudulent. Only one of those is a direct repudiation of the democratic system of government.

That resignation resulted in a president in the White House that no one elected - trust me, people were freaking out. Ford gets a lot of knocks, but really, we could have wound up with much, much worse that someone who essentially kept the seat warm until the next election and didn't do a whole lot to rock the boat. Ford was not elected, he was appointed, and appointed by a PotUS that was discredited and essentially forced to resign. Tell me, how would you feel if Pence was removed (for whatever reason), Trump appointed a replacement VP, and that Trump-appointee wound up in the Oval Office? Would that inspire confidence in you, or something else.

But yeah, your point about the US Civil War is very valid and an example of a worser scenario.

Point taken regarding Ford. And yeah, we could have done worse, though I will never forgive him for pardoning Nixon, which I think set a dangerous precedent of effective immunity for Presidential crimes, and one of the reasons why I feel that it is so absolutely essential that Trump actually go to trial/prison this time around.

Though to his credit, Ford did say later that it was a mistake to pardon Nixon, IIRC. But too little, too late.

[Lord Revan]

I must wonder how much of this is actual genuine insistance of "if we didn't win it was a fraud!" and how much of it is political rethoric of "we really didn't loose". As I said before it's one thing to have people say things, especially in the internet and it's totally another thing for them to actually act on it.

While "it's was just political rethoric" is not good, it's on totally different scale then honestly belives the only right election result is "I won".

[Edi]

I must wonder how much of this is actual genuine insistance of "if we didn't win it was a fraud!" and how much of it is political rethoric of "we really didn't loose". As I said before it's one thing to have people say things, especially in the internet and it's totally another thing for them to actually act on it.

While "it's was just political rethoric" is not good, it's on totally different scale then honestly belives the only right election result is "I won".

The hardcore Trumpists categorically refuse to accept any Democratic win as legitimate. In any election. I've asked, and I was told that point blank. So not just political rhetoric. Anything closely contested, they never accept it unless they win, and if they do win, any questions regarding it are regarded as an attempt to steal elections or something else.

When a Trumpist American conservative makes threats of violence, you should ALWAYS take them at face value and believe the threat is real, and react accordingly. This is how they react to even minor hyperbole even as they fantasize about running down liberals with pickups with spiked bumpers or other similar charming things.

[Soontir C'boath]

As it was the Republican governor, attorney general, and secretary of state that certified the results, pretty sure everyone (that matters), but Roy Moore, want to move on. Given the tone in this thread among neoliberals no less, it's a level of sanity that is unfortunately now considered a huge refreshing sigh of relief.

[Broomstick]

Point taken regarding Ford. And yeah, we could have done worse, though I will never forgive him for pardoning Nixon, which I think set a dangerous precedent of effective immunity for Presidential crimes, and one of the reasons why I feel that it is so absolutely essential that Trump actually go to trial/prison this time around.

Though to his credit, Ford did say later that it was a mistake to pardon Nixon, IIRC. But too little, too late.

Having been alive at the time, and also having done a bit of self-study later on in life, I understand the reasons why pardoning Nixon seemed to be a good idea at the time (at least for some people). Even so, at the time there were a lot of questions as to whether or not that was an appropriate use of the pardon, whether or not Nixon had actually done something criminal or not, and a lot of other turmoil. Remember, this was the tail end of the 1960's with riots, assassinations, and a VERY unpopular war all winding down. Sentiment at the time was "can we just take the pot off the fire so it doesn't fucking boil over blow up?"

Long term yes, it probably would have been better to put Nixon on trial, even though it would have been quite disruptive, but at the time calm and stability was so much in demand that short term it looked like a better option.

[The Romulan Republic]

Yeah, I can get why people felt that way at the time. Its more with the benefit of hindsight that it comes off as a mistake.

I'm basically coming at it from the perspective that the one absolutely indespensible thing in a democratic society (besides the integrity of the vote, obviously) is the rule of law, and that even the most powerful man is not above the rule of law.

Letting Nixon walk violated that.

[Gandalf]

Pretty much. It was pretty much the easy way out, and set some wonderful precedents. I wonder if subsequent Presidents would have done some of the stuff they had done (Iran Contra, Iraq in 2003, etc) had they seen Nixon on trial for what he did.

[The Romulan Republic]

Hell, Trump in general. IIRC, some of Trump's crowd are people who started out in the Nixon era. Trump can very well be understood as the culmination of the decline of the Republican Party that began with Richard Nixon.

[Gandalf]

Indeed. Soon we'll see the generation of party people who came up under Reagan too. It's going to be a long and ugly legacy of letting Nixon walk.

The darkly curious side of me wonders just how horrific someone could be and not actually have a decent chance of winning an election. Moore was a slavery advocate and paedophile, and nearly got there. Trump... well we all saw that.