MASSIVE DEMOCRAT TURNOUT In Alabama — GOP Turnout 50% of 2016; Democrat Turnout 92% of 2016

[driftdiver]

Sssshhh. Don’t speak reason here!  It’s not appreciated.  Wallow in self-pity and conspiracy theories instead.

@Oceander
Nominating good candidates isn't hard?   You want a fine upstanding person to sign up for neglecting their personal life, family and business so they can become a public official.   Have their whole life turned upside down by people who want nothing more then to destroy them for personal gain.

yeah thats gonna happen.....and its why we get so many who are corrupt and power hungry.

[Bigun]

That’s what happens when you give people a terrible choice: they become disaffected and give up on the process altogether. 

Moore and his supporters did a lot of damage.

Except for the fact that it was the voters themselves who gave them the choice.  The PROBLEM was that the VOTERS chose a candidate the boys in Washington didn't approve of so they joined with the Democrats and the media to torpedo that candidate!  Not the first time and for damned sure won't be the last!

[RetBobbyMI]

Not 90% turnout - 90% of the Dems' turnout in the last election.   Dems were motivated - they had a shot to win and their opponent was easy to demonize.    Lots of Republicans stayed home because they didn't want their vote to cause them to have to take an immediate shower.

Read again! Motivation or not, 90+ percent is unheard of, anytime, anywhere, any party. Especially in the Deep South poverty stricken rural areas. It smell of fraud perpetrated on any election...worse than the accusations leveled at Moore.

[INVAR]

It all comes down to nominating good candidates.

Yes.  We got the message loud and clear: former liberal Democrats make the BEST Republicans.

Statists are the 'good candidates'.  Constitutional Conservatives that uphold biblical morality - forget it.

We now note that if the voters reject the choice the Establishment wants in a seat, the Oligarchy will work to ensure the choice made by the voters is nullified in the General and handed to the Democrat, who holds the interests of the Oligarchy better than any Conservative will.

[Jazzhead]

Yes.  We got the message loud and clear: former liberal Democrats make the BEST Republicans.

Statists are the 'good candidates'.  Constitutional Conservatives that uphold biblical morality - forget it.

We now note that if the voters reject the choice the Establishment wants in a seat, the Oligarchy will work to ensure the choice made by the voters is nullified in the General and handed to the Democrat, who holds the interests of the Oligarchy better than any Conservative will.

Oh, stop whining.   

[INVAR]

Oh, stop whining.   

I think Obama told us similarly that we need to 'eat our peas' when being forced to accept Statism.

[Oceander]

Yes.  We got the message loud and clear: former liberal Democrats make the BEST Republicans.

Statists are the 'good candidates'.  Constitutional Conservatives that uphold biblical morality - forget it.

We now note that if the voters reject the choice the Establishment wants in a seat, the Oligarchy will work to ensure the choice made by the voters is nullified in the General and handed to the Democrat, who holds the interests of the Oligarchy better than any Conservative will.

That wasn’t the message.  Moore was about as good a candidate as Barney Fife was a crack shot with his pistol.

[musiclady]

That wasn’t the message.  Moore was about as good a candidate as Barney Fife was a crack shot with his pistol.

Everyone is to blame except Moore, himself.

[INVAR]

That wasn’t the message.  Moore was about as good a candidate as Barney Fife was a crack shot with his pistol.

Except that the Republican base chose him as their candidate in the primary against the Establishment's Luther Strange handily.  So I guess you could charge the crackpot Republican voters in Alabama for making him their nominee.

[Oceander]

Except that the Republican base chose him as their candidate in the primary against the Establishment's Luther Strange handily.  So I guess you could charge the crackpot Republican voters in Alabama for making him their nominee.

I could.  Stupid knows no bounds, as those who nominated him have proven.

[dfwgator]

I could.  Stupid knows no bounds, as those who nominated him have proven.

Strange had his issues, as well.

[musiclady]

Except that the Republican base chose him as their candidate in the primary against the Establishment's Luther Strange handily.  So I guess you could charge the crackpot Republican voters in Alabama for making him their nominee.

I don't get it.  We were supposed to think that the Alabama voters would get it right.  We were told that they should be trusted.

So, they got it right in the primary, but didn't get it right in the general?  What happened to those wise Alabama voters we were told to trust, and were assured would do the right thing?

And why do you supposed Alabama Republican voters stayed home rather than vote for him if he was such a good candidate?  Maybe they were displaying the wisdom y'all claimed they had before election day by not voting for such a deeply flawed human being, who is NOT the Constitutional icon you want him to be.....

[Oceander]

Strange had his issues, as well.

Which simply shows that the GOP has a really shitty ability to pick nominees and candidates all around.  That Strange might have been bad doesn’t lessen the failings of Moore. 

[INVAR]

I could.  Stupid knows no bounds, as those who nominated him have proven.

This is why the Republican Party will now choose the candidates for the voters from now on.

Voters are too stupid to know what is best for them.  So now the party will choose for them.

And if the voters reject their pick, then they will work to make sure the Democrat gets the seat.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

This is why the Republican Party will now choose the candidates for the voters from now on.

Voters are too stupid to know what is best for them.  So now the party will choose for them.

And if the voters reject their pick, then they will work to make sure the Democrat gets the seat.

From the party of personal responsibility to "everything is the gop-e's fault!".

[catfish1957]

If anyone truly believes that 92% of the eligible dim vote (sans...2/3 black) actually voted?.....well I got a great land deal in Florida, I'd like to tell you about.

[edpc]

Read again! Motivation or not, 90+ percent is unheard of, anytime, anywhere, any party. Especially in the Deep South poverty stricken rural areas. It smell of fraud perpetrated on any election...worse than the accusations leveled at Moore.

You read again.  The overall registered voter turnout in 2016 was 64% in a presidential election year.  What they're saying is half the number of those R voters came back and almost all of the D voters did.  Even if all came back from both parties, it's nowhere near 100% for either. 

Special election turnout is key.  Dems got most of the number that got smashed last November to come back and only won by 1.5%.  That only happened because almost 23K were write-ins, which would have been enough to cover the loss by a few hundred.

Keep screaming voter fraud and looking like a clown.

[RetBobbyMI]

I don't get it.  We were supposed to think that the Alabama voters would get it right.  We were told that they should be trusted.

So, they got it right in the primary, but didn't get it right in the general?  What happened to those wise Alabama voters we were told to trust, and were assured would do the right thing?

And why do you supposed Alabama Republican voters stayed home rather than vote for him if he was such a good candidate?  Maybe they were displaying the wisdom y'all claimed they had before election day by not voting for such a deeply flawed human being, who is NOT the Constitutional icon you want him to be.....

Did GOP voters really stay home? I think a 50% turnout in a special election would be pretty good. But 90% of Dems when most are rural poor, that smells something fishy.

[Jazzhead]

You read again.  The overall registered voter turnout in 2016 was 64% in a presidential election year.  What they're saying is half the number of those R voters came back and almost all of the D voters did.  Even if all came back from both parties, it's nowhere near 100% for either. 

Special election turnout is key.  Dems got most of the number that got smashed last November to come back and only won by 1.5%.  That only happened because almost 23K were write-ins, which would have been enough to cover the loss by a few hundred.

Keep screaming voter fraud and looking like a clown.

That's right.   The Dems turned out most of their voters that they turned out in 2016.    They were motivated and sensed victory.   Many Republican voters, meanwhile, were embarrassed to the core over Roy Moore.   Moore did his best to play the "us vs. them" card, but perceptive Republican voters realized that Moore in the Senate was no boon to the GOP or the conservative cause. 

[Jazzhead]

If anyone truly believes that 92% of the eligible dim vote (sans...2/3 black) actually voted?.....well I got a great land deal in Florida, I'd like to tell you about.

Best of luck with that land deal, Catfish.  Read the news item again.   92% of the "eligible dim vote" did not turn out - just 92% of the vote they managed to turn out in 2016.   

[edpc]

Do the ignorants realize that even 25% in a special election is stupendous? 50% is near unheard of. You can't blame Moore losing on GOP turnout.

92% Dem turnout is near unbelievable. Just wonder how much fraud is part of that.

Except that is not what happened. In November 2016 64% of the total registered voters participated. Neither party approached their max. 

For the sake of easy comparison to the reported numbers in the story, let's say 200 Republican voters participated last Nov and 100 Democrat voters did. In the special election, Democrats got 92 of those votes to return and Republicans got 100, but 12 or so of them voted for a write-in candidate.

In that instance you get a total of 92 D, 88 R, and 12 write-In for a narrow Democrat victory. That is the story in a nutshell.

[RetBobbyMI]

That's right.   The Dems turned out most of their voters that they turned out in 2016.    They were motivated and sensed victory.   Many Republican voters, meanwhile, were embarrassed to the core over Roy Moore.   Moore did his best to play the "us vs. them" card, but perceptive Republican voters realized that Moore in the Senate was no boon to the GOP or the conservative cause.

Hogwash. The Dems didn’t turn out 90+% in the last election or even in Obama’s years.

[Suppressed]

Read again! Motivation or not, 90+ percent is unheard of, anytime, anywhere, any party.

@RetBobbyMI
Try reading yet again. It's not 90% turnout.
 Would it help to read it as "8% lower turnout than last year"?

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

@RetBobbyMI
Try reading yet again. It's not 90% turnout.
 Would it help to read it as "8% lower turnout than last year"?

Good catch. 92% turnout of 2016.

Means that GOP voters just didn't show up this year. Wonder why?

[catfish1957]

Best of luck with that land deal, Catfish.  Read the news item again.   92% of the "eligible dim vote" did not turn out - just 92% of the vote they managed to turn out in 2016.

Thanks, really need a second cup of coffee.......