And in the process, blamed not the fact they lost, but the cost of the process of losing.
Can’t wait for the first time that Alabama puts a Democrat in the Governor’s mansion, and gets to appoint a Senator for almost two years. Bets on the law being changed again? 
According to the linked article -
*Under current law, if a state Senate seat is vacated before the end of an incumbent’s term, the governor must appoint a temporary replacement before a special election is held to appoint a successor for the rest of the term.
Under the new bill, the special election would have to coincide with the election cycle, with the replacement appointed by the governor serving until Alabamans next go to the ballot.*
(Of course the replacement appointed by the governor will be serving until Alabamans next go to the ballot. That’s SOP.) :rolleyes:
In Alabama, the governor must still appoint a replacement Senator for a vacated Senate seat. Can we assume that, according to Alabama law, the govenor’s choice of replacement Senator has to be selected from the same party as the former/vacating Senator?
To answer your question, at first glance, this bill seems to have changed the date when Alabama voters will vote to fill the vacated Senate seat. That doesn’t mean that Democrat Doug Jones would not have triumphed over scandal hit Republican Roy Moore when the votes were totaled.
The implied assumption on the part of the Republican Party in Alabama is that, in a general election, turnout of their supporters will be stronger, as there are other candidates from the Party to vote for. The underlying assumption is that Jones won because a significant enough portion of supporters stayed at home, rather than come in and vote for Moore, a not unreasonable assumption, given the small margin of the win.
I think of Republicans having a general turn out advantage, which would make special elections a winner for them.
“Implied assumption”? “Underlying assumption”? I’m under the assumption that Moore was a rather unpleasant person who’s past life and latest candidacy generated a lot of anti-Moore sentiment. That anti-Moore sentiment turned out a lot of anti-Moore voters. A lot of voters who would have turned out next November, just as they did in the past special election in December.
In marginal states, that might well be true. But in a state where the Republican Party is the ONLY party in power, that may stop operating as a true assumption. Special elections will usually bring out larger numbers of those with a cause, and the Republicans wouldn’t necessarily be the “motivated” voters in such cases (assuming a closely contested election).
Indeed, I believe that the post-election analysis here shows that Democrats turned out in heavier than expected numbers proportionally. Turn-out was heavy for a by-election, but the Republicans didn’t so so well at getting out the vote. Which should surprise no one.
In a general election that’s not going to be an issue, because even if, for example, Roy Moore was running and facing the same problems, the voters would be coming out for, say, the Governor’s race, and presumably would be likely to tick the (R) vote, even for Moore.
Do you believe, then, that the change being made has nothing to do with the result of the recent special election? :dubious:
We start with the assumption that the Party is reacting to that loss. We look at the thing that has changed (elimination of a special election in favor of a general election). We then postulate what assumed facts and/or postulates the Party has made that led them to the conclusion that they should make that change. Clearly, since they have removed the possibility of a special election, they, as the party in overwhelming charge of the state believe their chances of retaining a Senate seat are better in the general election than in the special election. That must mean that either a) they assume fewer Democrats vote in general than in special elections, or b) that more Republicans (and Republican supporters) would be motivated to vote in a general election for a candidate who would be under-supported in a special election. I think we can both agree which of these two options they are considering likely.
Indeed, your statement contains the seed of the determination. Their assumption is that the opponents would be equally motivated in either election, but that their own base would be more motivated if other down/up ballot offices are present.
That’s certainly a lot of assumptions, and postulations. You forgot to mention that the state will save $11 millions by not holding special elections. State employees have to be given additional duties, or reassigned, to organize and hold special elections. Ballots have to be printed and distributed. Polling stations have to be found that are available on the date of the special election. Volunteers to man the polling stations have to be rounded up. Election machines have to be programmed, delivered, and returned. Ballots have to be counted. Elections cost time and money. It’s a fact, not a lie, that the state will save money by not holding special elections.
AFAIK, special elections are held in order to see that the voters, not the governor, can chose their elected representative as quickly as possible. That seems like a good thing, and I’m personally in favor holding special elections. But that’s just me.
You want to know if the election date change was made because the party in power hopes to remain in power. All politicians want to remain in power. That’s a given. The question then is if this election change date will benifit the party in power, or benifit the loyal opposition. Can we assume that the party in power is the party in power because the voters have elected them in sufficient numbers to make them the party in power?
I see two possible outcomes from this election date change.
A- The party in power has enough voter support in November to allow a highly controversial candidate like Moore to be elected.
or
B- The loyal opposition can turn out enough voters, anti-party-in-power-voters, to elect the anti-Moore candidate.
If it’s “B”, then this election date change wasn’t very well thought out. This change could cost the party in power a lot more than one seat.
So, who’s ahead in the AL-Sen race? I’ve not been paying much attention to it lately.