Just curious

[caliherd]

Why are people acting like the Roy Moore loss was a huge upset and it was monumental etc. etc.

Roy Moore was an awful candidate. Take away the child molesting charges the guy was s good ball. There were a lot of Republicans that didn’t like Moore and either voted for the Democrat or wrote in another Republican.

This was a repudiation of Roy Moore who in my opinion deserved everything he got.

But to hear Facebook twitter and the media talk it was as if Carter had beaten Reagan. In 2 years the seat will be up again. Moore won’t be running and a competent Republican will win back the seat and something tells me it won’t even be close.

 

[HerdBuckeye]

Why are people acting like the Roy Moore loss was a huge upset and it was monumental etc. etc.

Roy Moore was an awful candidate. Take away the child molesting charges the guy was s good ball. There were a lot of Republicans that didn’t like Moore and either voted for the Democrat or wrote in another Republican.

This was a repudiation of Roy Moore who in my opinion deserved everything he got.

But to hear Facebook twitter and the media talk it was as if Carter had beaten Reagan. In 2 years the seat will be up again. Moore won’t be running and a competent Republican will win back the seat and something tells me it won’t even be close.

Agreed but regardless it is a 30 point swing of what A republican would have won by. Jones will probably contend well for re election.

 

[GreenDuke]

Jones will lose by 15 points in my opinion. He will have just enough time to insult the Ala electorate sensibilities.

 

[NutcaseConservative]

All Jones has to do to get reelected in AL is say he is against abortion. And if some Dems have to soften their stance on abortion to get elected in deep red States then so be it.

 

[i am herdman]

What is funny is the people who made fun of Alabama and Alabama didn't elect the guy.

 

[raleighherdfan]

What is funny is the people who made fun of Alabama and Alabama didn't elect the guy.

This is an interesting point. Yet another media/polling/leftist presumption....goes up in smoke.

Wouldn't surprise me if the internal data showed the defeat was the reality weeks ago, but the "buzz" around the story needed to be on the Repub/Alabama/deplorables "going to elect....regardless" . Kept the left's kooky base engaged.

Gave MSNBC/CNN something to talk about, and their uninformed viewers a moral victory after going 1 for 6 in special elections.

 

[big_country90]

As long as all our candidates get accused of child molestation, you guys might be able to be competitive going forward.

Something to hope for, anyway.

 

[HerdBuckeye]

What is funny is the people who made fun of Alabama and Alabama didn't elect the guy.

Not buying it. White males, older than 45 and evangelicals still voted for him overwhelmingly. Females and blacks squeezed this one out. But for the most part the base held together.

 

[herdfan06]

Maybe Jones will serve out the remainder of his term and allow a more conservative Democrat to run or maybe one will beat him in the primary.

 

[i am herdman]

Not buying it. White males, older than 45 and evangelicals still voted for him overwhelmingly. Females and blacks squeezed this one out. But for the most part the base held together.

How many stayed home and didn't vote? If all the conservative voters in Alabama would have turned out and voted for him then, he would have won easily. He lost.

 

[extragreen]

How many stayed home and didn't vote? If all the conservative voters in Alabama would have turned out and voted for him then, he would have won easily. He lost.

If democrats had turned out for the 2016 election, we wouldn't have cheetos in the White House.

 

[Raoul Duke MU]

Not buying it. White males, older than 45 and evangelicals still voted for him overwhelmingly. Females and blacks squeezed this one out. But for the most part the base held together.

If you ever wondered why southern Republicans try to make it harder for blacks to vote, you got your answer Tuesday.

 

[WV-FAN]

If democrats had turned out for the 2016 election, we wouldn't have cheetos in the White House.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/28/...nout-wasnt-the-driver-of-clintons-defeat.html

 

[extragreen]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/28/...nout-wasnt-the-driver-of-clintons-defeat.html

You're wrong moron. Democrat turnout was down 4% from the previous election.

 

[WV-FAN]

You're wrong moron. Democrat turnout was down 4% from the previous election.

whatever makes you feel better about your consolation trophy.

129 million votes in 2012 vs 136 million votes in 2016

65.91 million for barry in 2012 vs. 65.84 for the cvnt in 2016

third party candidates surged from 2.2 million in 2012 to 7.8 million in 2016

votes were up by over 7 million in 2016 vs 2012. this, and the above, pretty much annihilates your assertion. appears as though it wasn't as much lack of voter turnout for hillary as it was there was enough people who thought she was a piece of shit and elected to vote against her via a 3rd party candidate. if you're going to be pissed at anybody for her monumental defeat, you should be pissed at your brethern (perhaps yourself) for voting 3rd party vs voting for the cvnt.

 

[extragreen]

 

[WV-FAN]

LINK

 

[WV-FAN]

LOL, a google search of your image shows sources of freelunch.co, politicalwire.com, wrongologist.com, twitter.com/newdarkcloud, and jackpineradicals.com

jack pine radicals??? WTF! LOL!

 

[extragreen]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...voter-turnout-plunged/?utm_term=.59a27ac047eb

 

[WV-FAN]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...voter-turnout-plunged/?utm_term=.59a27ac047eb

guess the wapo's source is jack pine radicals. no wonder they're well known as one of the fake news organizations! LMFAO!

 

[extragreen]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/omribe...use-of-lower-democratic-turnout/#3580fb1053ab

 

[WV-FAN]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/omribe...use-of-lower-democratic-turnout/#3580fb1053ab

yeah, cute article you found from forbes dates 11/17/16. apparently, they corrected that article with the one i posted above on 12/29/16.

Last week, election results from all states were finally certified. While most headlines focused on Hillary Clinton’s 2.8 million popular votes lead over Donald Trump, the results also debunked claims that had been circulating over the past few weeks.

Final results also reveal that despite early claims of historically low turnout, the number of raw votes cast in the 2016 presidential election - 136,628,459 - is actually the highest total ever.

try, try, try again.

 

[extragreen]

Let's see, moron. You're arguing that since democrat votes were cast at a total of 69,499,000 in 2008, 65,916,000 in 2012, and 65,845,000 in 2016, that democrat voter turn out is higher in the last election.

 

[WV-FAN]

Let's see, moron. You're arguing that since democrat votes were cast at a total of 69,499,000 in 2008, 65,916,000 in 2012, and 65,845,000 in 2016, that democrat voter turn out is higher in the last election.

try to follow along old man, i know your feeble dementia-esqe mind makes it difficult for you: you made a bogus claim, i proved you wrong. period. the end.

 

[extragreen]

try to follow along old man, i know your feeble dementia-esqe mind makes it difficult for you: you made a bogus claim, i proved you wrong. period. the end.

So, the numbers in YOUR link are incorrect. Got it.

 

[WV-FAN]

So, the numbers in YOUR link are incorrect. Got it.

hey, dumbass, the numbers from the link i provided are from one of the websites YOU posted a link from, just updated. and, yeah, i think i'll take numbers from forbes over jack pine radicals any day. however, since the numbers from forbes doesn't fit your agenda, i wouldn't expect you to believe numbers from a site you posted a link from over a website named jack pine radicals.

you really aren't this fvckin stupid, are you?




























rhetorical, dick, rhetorical.

 

[extragreen]

Keep it up moron. Your as wrong about this as you were those reduced regulations causing your brothers business to do better.

 

[WV-FAN]

Keep it up moron. Your as wrong about this as you were those reduced regulations causing your brothers business to do better.

"keep it up"??? what are you going to do, prove yourself even more wrong? block me? LMFAO!

seriously, are you semi-retarded or full potato?

 

[extragreen]

"keep it up"??? what are you going to do, prove yourself even more wrong? block me? LMFAO!

seriously, are you semi-retarded or full potato?

What are you? Answer: you are wrong....again.

 

[i am herdman]

If democrats had turned out for the 2016 election, we wouldn't have cheetos in the White House.

No shit. They didn't like Hillary just like they didn't like Moore in Alabama. Dude, had already lost a couple of elections before. Throw in hanging out in the girls locker room and there you have it. Loser.

 

[WV-FAN]

What are you? Answer: you are wrong....again.

prove it. i've stated my proof, provided you links from YOUR website. you haven't provided shit other than a an obviously skewed and incorrect graph from jack pine radical website.

btw, how can a question be wrong? dumbass.

 

[extragreen]

prove it. i've stated my proof, provided you links from YOUR website. you haven't provided shit other than a an obviously skewed and incorrect graph from jack pine radical website.

btw, how can a question be wrong? dumbass.

Let's see, moron. You're arguing that since democrat votes were cast at a total of 69,499,000 in 2008, 65,916,000 in 2012, and 65,845,000 in 2016, that democrat voter turn out is higher in the last election.

 

[extragreen]

No shit. They didn't like Hillary just like they didn't like Moore in Alabama. Dude, had already lost a couple of elections before. Throw in hanging out in the girls locker room and there you have it. Loser.

You need to explain this to morganholefan

 

[WV-FAN]

Let's see, moron. You're arguing that since democrat votes were cast at a total of 69,499,000 in 2008, 65,916,000 in 2012, and 65,845,000 in 2016, that democrat voter turn out is higher in the last election.

damn, you're stupid. you stated:

If democrats had turned out for the 2016 election, we wouldn't have cheetos in the White House.

i proved that wrong with the fact that voter turnout was at an all time high for this election. you refuse to believe that any dem voters would have either voted republican or independent (independent votes were up by 5.5 million over 2012). pretty simple, really . . . even for someone with quarter a brain and not blinded by party affiliation, i.e. a jackass like you. just because dem votes are down, which is precisely what you've present, doesn't infer that dem voter turnout is down. "doh, the dems who voted independent or republican must not have shown up to vote!" judas priest, you're an idiot.

now, either prove me wrong or shut the fvck up. anything other than proof the data i presented is incorrect, which it's not, it'll be construed as though you're waving the white flag and have accepted defeat, but simply doing what you do best when proven a dumbass, diversion.

 

[extragreen]

You're an absolute moron. Voter turnout out was high as a total because there are 9 million more people now than in 2012.

 

[WV-FAN]

You're an absolute moron. Voter turnout out was high as a total because there are 9 million more people now than in 2012.

oh, yeah, forgot about all those illegals that moved in voting. that must be it, dems stayed home, but the illegals made up 50% of those that stayed home, and if the other 50% of the legals turned up, she wins popular vote by 30 million, give or take, but still loses the electorate, just not nearly as bad. amirite?

 

[HerdBuckeye]

oh, yeah, forgot about all those illegals that moved in voting. that must be it, dems stayed home, but the illegals made up 50% of those that stayed home, and if the other 50% of the legals turned up, she wins popular vote by 30 million, give or take, but still loses the electorate, just not nearly as bad. amirite?

The illegal voters in Alabama threw the vote to jones. No doubt.

 

[mlblack16.]

yeah, cute article you found from forbes dates 11/17/16. apparently, they corrected that article with the one i posted above on 12/29/16.

Last week, election results from all states were finally certified. While most headlines focused on Hillary Clinton’s 2.8 million popular votes lead over Donald Trump, the results also debunked claims that had been circulating over the past few weeks.

Final results also reveal that despite early claims of historically low turnout, the number of raw votes cast in the 2016 presidential election - 136,628,459 - is actually the highest total ever.

try, try, try again.

Since Greed has no shame, I'm embarrassed for him. He won't quit though, no matter how much of a beat down you give.

 

[SamSwimmer]

You're wrong moron. Democrat turnout was down 4% from the previous election.

had democrats run literally anyone else, they probably would have won. it's not the voters' fault that they didn't get behind a despicable candidate that was forced down their throat. the ones who did turn out were pulling the lever while suppressing their gag reflex.

 

[extragreen]

oh, yeah, forgot about all those illegals that moved in voting. that must be it, dems stayed home, but the illegals made up 50% of those that stayed home, and if the other 50% of the legals turned up, she wins popular vote by 30 million, give or take, but still loses the electorate, just not nearly as bad. amirite?

No, you're just a moron. No other explanation is needed.