Fox News Poll: Enthused Democrats give Jones[10pt] lead over Moore in Alabama

[TomSea]

One certainly wonders about this Fox poll, maybe they did their methodology was to get more Republican voters out there. Though, Jones has a chance, it's hard to fathom him actually winning this.

[Frank Cannon]

One certainly wonders about this Fox poll, maybe they did their methodology was to get more Republican voters out there. Though, Jones has a chance, it's hard to fathom him actually winning this.

Tommy. It's a FOX poll. They haven't gotten one right forever. They had Clintoon up and winning in their last poll.

[edpc]

Tommy. It's a FOX poll. They haven't gotten one right forever. They had Clintoon up and winning in their last poll.

Well, the problem with the polls is they're national and don't reflect the electoral count.  On Nov 7, Fox had Clinton at 48 and Trump at 44, with a MOE of 2.5.

The final results were Clinton 48.5 and Trump 46.4. 

They pretty much nailed it, but pop votes don't equal victory.

https://realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/president/

http://www.cnn.com/election/results

[Frank Cannon]

Well, the problem with the polls is they're national and don't reflect the electoral count.  On Nov 7, Fox had Clinton at 48 and Trump at 44, with a MOE of 2.5.

The final results were Clinton 48.5 and Trump 46.4. 

They pretty much nailed it, but pop votes don't equal victory.

https://realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/president/

http://www.cnn.com/election/results

Final results didn't match their results. Nobody voted for Shrill Stein. FOX had her with 2%. That vote went to Donny. How's that make any sense? FOX polling is garbage.

[edpc]

Final results didn't match their results. Nobody voted for Shrill Stein. FOX had her with 2%. That vote went to Donny. How's that make any sense? FOX polling is garbage.

Historically, maybe their polling is way off.  I don't know, but they pretty much got the 2016 prez number spot on.

All polls have a MOE.  Theirs was 2.5, so Johnson was predicted to get 3, he got 3.2 - Stein was predicted at 2, received 1.07.

In fact, the number of votes that went for Stein in MI and WI could have won those states for Hillary.  She lost by 11K in MI, Stein got 50K.  Hillary lost WI by 27K, Stein got 30K.


https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://insider.foxnews.com/amp/article/52379&ved=0ahUKEwi8k5W84IPYAhWm4IMKHUpXD9kQFgglMAA&usg=AOvVaw1JqN-VifVBDdV0lzqBbVQv&ampcf=1

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2016

The Independent, Constitution, and Socialist candidates rounded out the remaining negligible amounts.

Their numbers hit the poll results within the +/- factor, but the important states fell to Trump.  The ridiculous margin of victory in places like CA gave her the high popular totals.  Thankfully, that's irrelevant in the electoral game.

[aligncare]

And it shows how willingly some will believe a lie without questioning it, then dig in when presented with any evidence challenging it.

Yep. Our side likes to eat our own. Democrats go shopping for the ingredients, but the chef is usually a pearl clutching pubbie.

[aligncare]

Exactly.  I have disagreements with people on subjects, but I don't carry that over to another thread with that same member.  Since I don't know anyone here personally, why would I take anything said in that way?

Having disagreements is fine. How one expresses those disagreements is where the problem comes in for far too many on these internet political discussion boards.

[Applewood]

Well, guys, today's the day.  None of these polls mean a dang thing.  The one that will count will be this one -- where the people of Alabama decide who they really want to represent them in the senate.  Nothing else matters.

[Cyber Liberty]

Well, guys, today's the day.  None of these polls mean a dang thing.  The one that will count will be this one -- where the people of Alabama decide who they really want to represent them in the senate.  Nothing else matters.

Righto.  Not gonna stop us from spending the day predicting what's going to happen and throwing brickbats at each other.   

[Jazzhead]

Jazz, while I agree with your reasoning to an extent...all Republicans at this point need to hold their nose and vote for Moore. He's reprehensible, but the Senate is too important to allow a Dem from Alabama to tip it away from the GOP. The best possible outcome is a Moore victory, his removal under Article I, Section 5, clause 2, of the Constitution by his fellow Republicans and a few Dems...and a new Alabama Senate election that puts forward a new conservative candidate who is not a child molester. This keeps the seat GOP, and shows that we are more than willing to expel a reprehensible member of our own party when necessary.

@Mesaclone, the problem I have with your thinking is that it disrespects the voters of Alabama.   I've been arguing for weeks that Moore is wholly unfit for the office he seeks,  but if the voters of Alabama want him, they deserve to get him.    If Moore wins, he must be seated and allowed to serve, without the cloud of an ethics investigation over charges from over 30 years ago.   If Moore wins,  then the voters of Alabama will have decided that such charges aren't important to them,  and that they'd rather have their Godly pervert in the Senate than a liberal who, like Hillary, made no effort whatsoever to meet them halfway on the issues.   

The Senate's business should be ethics violations while in office, not charges that have been vetted and dismissed by voters.     That's an important concept, and for more than Roy Moore and the preferences of Alabamans.    Yesterday,  a bunch of old charges against Trump's behavior toward women were brought up in a news conference,  and a Congressional investigation demanded.    If we are going to be disregarding the will of the voters and turning out their choices based on information the voters had on hand when making their decision,  that is an affront to republican (small "r") democracy.   

[Jazzhead]

One certainly wonders about this Fox poll, maybe they did their methodology was to get more Republican voters out there. Though, Jones has a chance, it's hard to fathom him actually winning this.

The difference between a poll and a vote is that the former requires taking a public position, even if the "public" consists of the just the pollster.  A vote is secret, and, approached with seriousness as it should be, is an expression of conscience made in the sight of God and no other.   

[HoustonSam]

If Moore wins, he must be seated and allowed to serve, without the cloud of an ethics investigation over charges from over 30 years ago.   

The Senate's business should be ethics violations while in office, not charges that have been vetted and dismissed by voters.     

If we are going to be disregarding the will of the voters and turning out their choices based on information the voters had on hand when making their decision,  that is an affront to republican (small "r") democracy.

Very well-stated @Jazzhead.  The idea that incumbent officials can refuse to seat the people's choice, or can hound that choice out of office over allegations the people already considered, defeats the entire purpose of elections.  Massachusetts chose Barney Frank and Ted Kennedy, Alabama can choose Roy Moore.

[Smokin Joe]

It's not "my wish".    The Alabama GOP had the time and the means to dump this clown.   They chose to stick with him.   You reap what you sow.

Well, just maybe the Alabama GOP knows a liberal hit job when they see one. But we get it. You hate the guy who lost his job standing for the Alabama Constitution over a Federal District Judge trying to impose 'gay marriage' on the State--TO THE POINT HE LOST HIS JOB OVER IT.

[Cyber Liberty]

If Moore wins, he must be seated and allowed to serve, without the cloud of an ethics investigation over charges from over 30 years ago.

@Jazzhead

Not gonna happen.  We still have craptons of people trying to overturn the election of over a year ago, and there's no way they're going to acquiesce to this one if it doesn't go the way they want.  Mitch the Bitch has already promised to screw the people of AL if they vote the wrong way by convening that ethics investigation, just to keep Moore off any committees if for no other reason.

While I don't generally believe Mitch's promises, I'm inclined to believe this one because he made the promise to his bosses.

[Smokin Joe]

Well Jones is certainly the candidate that best fits Jazz's belief system.

Yeah, his idea of reducing abortion is to promote gay marriage....

[Smokin Joe]

@Jazzhead

Not gonna happen.  We still have craptons of people trying to overturn the election of over a year ago, and there's no way they're going to acquiesce to this one if it doesn't go the way they want.  Mitch the Bitch has already promised to screw the people of AL if they vote the wrong way by convening that ethics investigation, just to keep Moore off any committees if for no other reason.

While I don't generally believe Mitch's promises, I'm inclined to believe this one because he made the promise to his bosses.

It isn't just Mitch--he's just an enabler. The MSM and minions haven't sunk anyone since Bork (unless you count Herman Cain), and before that, Nixon, and dammit! they are the ones who are supposed to be telling us all what to think. They won't give up easily, and will continue to hound Moore, if elected, with the blessings of McConnell and the rest of the swamp creatures.

They have pulled the lid off this crap, and it seems like there are new allegations and accusations surfacing every day (mostly media and Liberals). They can't sacrifice so many of their own and not get this guy, and the truth was the first casualty long ago.

Moore's stance for the Alabama Constitution provisions that marriage is between one man and one woman (only), has the long knives out in Hollywood, and in DC, which has the highest proportional homosexual population in the country, nearing that 10% we keep hearing about (but which is less than two, overall).

[Jazzhead]

Very well-stated @Jazzhead.  The idea that incumbent officials can refuse to seat the people's choice, or can hound that choice out of office over allegations the people already considered, defeats the entire purpose of elections.  Massachusetts chose Barney Frank and Ted Kennedy, Alabama can choose Roy Moore.

That's right.   Voters are sovereign, and have the right to make both wise and foolish choices.   If it were otherwise, as you say, what's the point of having elections?     

[Hoodat]

I've been arguing for weeks that Moore is wholly unfit for the office he seeks,  but if the voters of Alabama want him, they deserve to get him.

Your argument has been to condemn Moore for upholding the Constitution instead of yielding to the tyranny of a judge trying to override the Constitution.  Frankly, it is a very weak argument, considering that the voters of Alabama would much prefer a Senator with a proven track record of defending the Constitution against all enemies - foreign and domestic.

If Moore wins,  then the voters of Alabama will have decided that such charges aren't important to them,  and that they'd rather have their Godly pervert in the Senate than a liberal who, like Hillary, made no effort whatsoever to meet them halfway on the issues.

The second part of your argument has been the unsubstantiated 'pervert' issue.  The problem with this argument is that the period where these allegations took place is very brief.  Generally, one does not outgrow perversion.  It becomes a lifelong pattern.  And since there have been no incidents over the last few decades, only two conclusions can be drawn:

• The charges are all BS.
• Moore had some sort of "renewing of the mind" transformation

If the latter is the case, then I am more than willing to forget about the old man and focus on the new one.

[Jazzhead]

Your argument has been to condemn Moore for upholding the Constitution instead of yielding to the tyranny of a judge trying to override the Constitution.  Frankly, it is a very weak argument, considering that the voters of Alabama would much prefer a Senator with a proven track record of defending the Constitution against all enemies - foreign and domestic.

I disagree.   The taking of an oath to uphold the law is a very serious thing,  especially in a Constitutional republic where the mob is not supposed to rule.  It is one thing to disagree with a law or a ruling, and quite another to take the law into one's own hands and ignore it, or refuse to enforce it.  The State of Alabama recognized the seriousness of Judge Moore's nihilism by twice removing him from office. 

Yes, I disagree with Moore on the substance, but that's not what makes him unfit for office.   It is his lawlessness, per se, that disqualifies him.     

[Jazzhead]

The second part of your argument has been the unsubstantiated 'pervert' issue.  The problem with this argument is that the period where these allegations took place is very brief.  Generally, one does not outgrow perversion.  It becomes a lifelong pattern.  And since there have been no incidents over the last few decades, only two conclusions can be drawn:

• The charges are all BS.
• Moore had some sort of "renewing of the mind" transformation

If the latter is the case, then I am more than willing to forget about the old man and focus on the new one.

The charges aren't bullshit;  they are credible to many reasonable people, including many reasonable conservatives.   Could he have changed in the many years since?  Perhaps - although he seems to have backtracked in recent days from the apparent honesty he showed in the Hannity interview, where he acknowledged that he may have known these women and may have dated teenagers with their parents' permission many, many years ago.   Now he's just denying all, and THAT's simply not credible.   

But, like I said above, if the voters of Alabama want this guy,  then they deserve to get him.  I and many others have made our opinions known,  but in the end I will respect the will of the voters.     

[dfwgator]

@Jazzhead
When Moore votes for Trump's SCOTUS picks, you'll be glad that Jones didn't win that seat.

[Smokin Joe]

So true.  How unrealistic can some people get.  And yet, we find people here still bragging about not voting for Trump and earnestly claiming that this did not mean they supported Hillary.

They cannot face the fact that they did, in fact, support Hillary by voting for Mickey Mouse or not voting.

Would you kindly explain to me how my voting for Castle in a state that the popular vote went two to one for Trump, as anticipated, did one goddamned thing to bring that bitch one micron closer to getting those whopping three electoral votes?

It didn't. Hillary lost the state, two to one. All my vote did was help put another Party on the radar (because from what I'm seeing with the GOP, we're going to need one, yesterday.)

If I had persuaded another ten thousand people to vote for my candidate of choice, Trump still would have gotten the electoral votes, which are the ones which count. Effect to bring Hillary closer to the White House? Zero.
She would still not have the electoral votes, which are the only ones which count.

So pack up that lie in your old kit bag and sit on it, hard. That's enough of that egregious bullshit.

[TomSea]

@Jazzhead

Not gonna happen.  We still have craptons of people trying to overturn the election of over a year ago, and there's no way they're going to acquiesce to this one if it doesn't go the way they want.  Mitch the Bitch has already promised to screw the people of AL if they vote the wrong way by convening that ethics investigation, just to keep Moore off any committees if for no other reason.

While I don't generally believe Mitch's promises, I'm inclined to believe this one because he made the promise to his bosses.

I think people should remember, it's way more than Mitch McConnel who have questioned Moore, it's most of the Senators but Rand Paul; it's all kinds of people.  I figure one should rag on these others just as much. I guess, they are from the Swamp too! 

[Hoodat]

I disagree.   The taking of an oath to uphold the law is a very serious thing,  especially in a Constitutional republic

What law did Moore refuse to uphold?  Please be specific.

[DiogenesLamp]

I disagree.   The taking of an oath to uphold the law is a very serious thing,  especially in a Constitutional republic where the mob is not supposed to rule.

It is a serious thing,  and that is why you simply don't go along with kooks who claim the law means something that it clearly does not mean.   Kook Judges will come and go,  but the law is supposed to endure before and after them.   

It is one thing to disagree with a law or a ruling, and quite another to take the law into one's own hands and ignore it, or refuse to enforce it.

Exactly,  so all your criticism should be directed at those judges that took the law into their own hands and tried to make people enforce their own kooky opinions as "the law."   


If you oppose tyranny,   you must oppose nonsense judicial diktats masquerading as "law."   

The State of Alabama recognized the seriousness of Judge Moore's nihilism by twice removing him from office. 

The "State" of Alabama did no such thing.   If anything,  the "State"  of Alabama recognized the very opposite of what you say.   Cuck Judges who are terrified of being on the social outs with all the other "respectable"  people in the legal system,   decided to oust him because he bucked the Federal Judicial Tyranny,   and they want to cowardly comply with whatever they are told.   


Moore rocked their boat.   That's why they pulled out the long knives for him.