Interesting wrinkle:
Judge orders Alabama not to destroy voting records in Tuesday’s Senate election
Good idea.
You’re not from around here, are you?
I never really thought about it this way before, but: what about this?
Imagine that you despise abortion. Imagine that you want a Senator who’ll vote in favor of pretty much any legislation that restricts abortion, and who’ll cheerfully approve Supreme Court nominees upon hearing them denounce Roe v. Wade as a horrible decision that should be overturned. You get the idea.
And let’s say two candidates are running for Senate: one is thoroughly pro-choice, though she’s never had an abortion; and the other, who’ll vote for restrictions and approve nominees like I was just saying, has had two abortions.
Which one do you vote for?
The problem is that, if a candidate had had two abortions, how much can you really trust that she’ll consistently vote against abortion?
Sure, you can vote for Moore because he has an R after his name, but then you have to ask the question, why are you voting R? Most will say that it’s because of things like morals and character, and so you can’t use the R to justify a lack of those precise things.
I’ll grant that it’s a problem – but, again, the not-all-that-farfetched element in this hypothetical is that the other candidate is loudly and explicitly pro-choice. You know, the way plenty of folks are. I mean, yes, okay, with one you maybe wonder; but, with the other, figure you’d feel pretty safe in knowing what you’d get, right?
“Vote for Roy Moore, one of our attorneys is a Jew”
WTF is going on in Alabama?
Reminds me of Borat: Throw the Jews down the Well
I don’t think people are this crazy - they may be reluctant to say anything in public but once in the voting booth good will prevail.
If the only issues that a Senator is likely to face and that really matter to you are abortion and guns and the according judicial confirmation votes , then yes, it’s possible to rationalize away anything else. Oh, don’t look so surprised and outraged - there’s no way to say anything else matters if that’s all that matters to you.
Don’t forget immigration.
There was an interview with an Alabama voter on NPR this morning. He boiled it down to this- Vote for the accused (not convicted) molester, or vote for the guy you know approves of killing millions of innocents.
If he truly believes that abortion is murder, what else can he do?
He said he’d vote for Moore, but feel dirty afterwards, just like when he voted for Trump.
If the one who had two abortions has come to regret that, and speaks openly and honestly about their reasons and regrets, then there’s no moral barrier to voting for them–especially if the abortions were years ago, and the track record for pro-life activism was consistent.
I mean, I’m pretty pro-civil rights/social justice/whatever, but I’d vote for someone who was a neo-Nazi in their youth and had had a complete turn around–provided they were open and honest and had done an awful lot of socially progressive work to atone for their earlier mistakes. I’d certainly vote for such a person over someone who was currently advocating racist policies.
You characterize it in a somewhat derogatory way (“does what he’s told”) but the notion that someone would vote for Moore because you believe that the policies he is likely to support are more important for more people is nothing new. There was a time when this was the feminist defense for supporting Bill Clinton. And, frankly, it always seemed fairly reasonable to me.
If you imagine that you are a staunch anti-abortion voter, and you’re looking at an election between someone who opposes restricts on abortion until birth and someone who is accused of sexual misconduct 40 years ago? I think it’s easy to rationalize your vote.
While it might help them in the short term I think it will hurt them in the medium and long-term (IMHO), especially with the non-aligned center and independents. It’s going to be hard for the Republicans to shake the image of a party that chose what’s right for that party over someone who has committed the sorts of crimes this guy is accused of…and with underage women. We aren’t talking an affair with an intern or something like that…this is a whole 'nother level of sleaze, and it’s going to be associated with the Republicans now since not only did they know about it but when it came down to it they chose to allow this guy to continue on and even actively supported him.
This is, perhaps, a tactical win for the Republicans…but it’s going to be a strategic loss in the future, IMHO. If I were the Democrats I’d ensure that the contrast between Franken and Moore and the way not only the two men but the parties handled things was continually compared and contrasted. I’d also be feeding the Republicans all of the rope they need to further hang themselves…
As I said in the other thread, and as Chuck Todd said this week on Meet the Press, if Jones was a pro-life Democrat, the election would probably be over already. It’s very close, and it shouldn’t take much to swing it the other way (assuming Moore is going to win). Moore is already a controversial figure, even without the ethics issues. Republicans typically win by large margins in AL, but in his last election he barely cleared 50% of the vote. Trump won there with almost 2/3 of the vote, as did the other R Senator (they guy who said he didn’t vote for Moore this time).
It is always going to be a problem determining character when your desire is to put into power those who will remove the rights of people you despise.
There will always be tradeoffs. It is hard to find people who both treat women as creatures without rights or agency to make decisions about their own bodies, as well as someone who will treat women with respect.
Shades of the 1936 presidential telephone poll. Short version: Most people with telephones were rich enough to dislike Roosevelt’s New Deal policies and intended to vote for Landon. The majority of the population didn’t have a phone and were just fine with Roosevelt’s administration.
I read an article not long ago that said (paraphrasing) that Democrats had convincingly won the argument in the '90’s over whether someone’s private life misbehavior affects their ability to be a good public servant. I didn’t like reading that, but I think the author was right, at least for many voters.
For comparison, let’s flip this around, and try some “walk a mile in someone else’s shoes”.
Knowing what we know, and believing the accusers, would YOU, a reliable Democratic voter, vote for Al Franken? After all, he is an eloquent voice in favor of progressive policies. For voters on that side, would his history of bad behavior lead you to not vote for him or vote against him?
Why not vote for Al Franken?
And which way did that article claim that they had won?
Bit ambiguous there.
I’m a Republican and I can tell you why Roy Moore should not be Senator even if you condone his sexual escapades. He has shown numerous times that he refuses to accept the rule of law if it conflicts with his beliefs. I want a Senator that believes the controlling document of this country is the Constitution, not the Bible.