As the posts above all circle round: turnout is what matters. Remember that i[n the 2014 midterms turnout in Alabama](something like $45K) was only 41%, or IOW 59% of RVs did not vote, and special elections typically have turnout as low or lower than midterms. 2016 had a high turnout for Alabama, probably motivated even more out of a distaste for HRC than love of Trump. So of that 41% that came out for the last midterms will all who voted R bother coming out again this time? Of the 59% who did not bother to come out will some be more motivated this time. If so on which side do you think?
Jones is not as objectionable as Clinton. Not as many will come out to vote against hm as did to vote against her. And Moore is so objectionable to some that he will motivate some turnout to vote against him. And some who would lean R may just not bother to make the effort.
Determining who is a likely voter is a tricky thing in this circumstance and not completely captured by the error bars.
In 2012, Alabama went to Romney by 22 points.
Romney 1,255,925 61.2%
Obama 795,696 38.8%
Total 2,051,621 100.0%
Moore was also in a statewide race on that same ballot and beat his opponent by less than 4 points.
Moore 1,051,627 51.8%
Vance 977,301 48.2%
Total 2,028,928 100.0%
However, Alabama went a little more red in 2016 which works in Moore’s favor.
Trump 1,318,255 64.4%
Clinton 729,547 35.6%
Total 2,047,802 100.0%
I think the fact that he only beat the Dem by 3.7% in 2012 might be important. He barely won before he had been accused of child molestation.
Considering that Shelby won his 2016 senate race by a larger margin than Trump beat Clinton and Sessions ran unopposed in 2014, I think it’s safe to say that this will be much closer than a typical Alabama senate race of late.
With all of the notoriety, there may be a much higher turnout than normal. Many Dems who wouldn’t have bothered will show up now that there is a chance. Also, we are a month out which is an eternity.
Have we discussed the suburban/urban versus rural breakdown in this district? Apologies if I missed it. I think that’s going to impact the vote as well.
But a Senate election has very different consequences, and therefore different motivations. There are many people who don’t like Moore, but hate the idea of Democrats regaining control of the US Senate.
I think I’ll stick with my New York values, if this is what the alternative is:
Given the allegations that have come out about Roy Moore’s alleged sexual misconduct against four
underage women, are you more or less likely to support him as a result of these allegations?
More Likely 29%
Less Likely 38%
No Difference 33%
Yes, molesting underage girls is seen as a positive by nearly one out of three Alabamans.
I’ll bite; what does it mean? The most generous reading of that poll that I can come up with is that the 29% all think the accusers are lying and are leaping to the defense of someone they perceive as having been railroaded by the liberal northeastern press, but frankly that doesn’t say a lot about either their critical thinking skills or their ability to look past Our Team / Your Team.
I would hazard to guess there may be some who think the women are lying but more likely what this means is that, at least as far as Alabama is concerned, Fox News has won. For a lot of these voters abortion, immigration, gay marriage and Muslims are an existential threat to their way of life.
And the belief that the Democratic Party is evil and out to destroy America.
This explanation explains why it wouldn’t change their opinions. But 29% said that the accusations made them MORE LIKELY to vote for him. As in, because he was accused of molesting a 14 year old they are MORE LIKELY to vote for him as a result.
Most likely not, at least not all of them. Clinton was a good president and a garbage human being. Admittedly I was willing to overlook the latter due to the former, but the accusations certainly didn’t make me more likely to vote for him, they made me less likely to vote for him. Because if allegations of sexual misconduct make you more likely to vote for that person, then you are an immoral person.
Question wasn’t whether they were more likely to vote for him. Question was whether they were more likely to support him.
Given the allegations that have come out about Roy Moore’s alleged sexual misconduct against four
underage women, are you more or less likely** to support him** as a result of these allegations?
And, again, then the allegations should still make them less likely to support him even if they still end up voting for him (as your example with Clinton). But, the fact that he has been accused of molesting a girl actually makes them more likely to support him.
This is just silly semantics. Most people would take that as “support him in the election”, i.e. vote for him. As backwards as you might think people in Alabama might be, they are not actually in favor of child molestation in any great numbers.