>>Hey I am the one that got it wrong - I've been saying all along that I thought that Moore would win. Not too often I'm glad I was wrong about something ...ha

Moore didn't just lose. Sessions had such a lock on the seat that he ran unopposed last time, collecting 97% of the vote. Moore has been around for just as long as Sessions, long enough for his electorate to know him.

IMHO a big part of Moore's problem is stubborn high horse positions on over-intellectualized grounds that make eyes glaze. As I said yesterday, Alabamans want it straight. So when Moore opposes an amendment that pulls segregation clauses from the AL statutes on the intellectualized grounds that the Supreme Court already rendered it illegal via a binding set of rulings that he can name- few can assess what the Supreme Court did, or why Moore would be so adamant on it.

So what if the Supreme Court already ruled, they wonder. What's wrong with removing obsolete language that some find hurtful? I think Moore lacks the social intelligence- what others would label empathy- to anticipate such a response. Ditto his commentary re constitutional amendments after the 10th being repealed: only those willing to dig deep will see past the simple retort that amendments after the 10th are the ones that foreswore slavery and gave the vote to blacks and women. Moore's long explanations cannot compete with what seems obvious to reasonable people, which is something he definitely needed to learn if he wanted to frequent the swamp.

Ditto his comments about Muslims in Congress. Dig deep and he knows chapter and verse the parts of Sharia that clash with the constitution. Intellectually, you can see his argument. But where is his cherished first amendment protection for religious practice now? If you can block Muslims on intellectual grounds, surely Catholics must come shortly after, followed by Baptists and one by one they fall until all you have left are the cynics and liars. That's apart from the idea that if the people of xyz state want to elect a Muslim, that should be that? Moore's apparent lack of social intelligence in such areas lets him paint himself into a corner expecting that his intellectual masterpieces will win everybody over.

As for the gay thing: I think Moore's religious beliefs are pretty clear, but his legalist views are almost totally misunderstood. Here's the 2005 interview where he said that homosexual conduct (he emphasized that word) should be illegal. And it's a brilliant example of his favorite high-browed argument about respective powers of pillars of government, interrupted by the interviewer who can't follow the argument, with Moore lacking the social intelligence to see how his words will be taken:

Moore: "What I think is that [sodomy] was illegal under the law, that the Supreme Court usurped the role of the legislature and ruled something about our moral law that is improper, and that's what we're finding the Supreme Court and the federal district courts are doing daily. They've usurped the moral prerogative, now, if you want--"

Interviewer: "I don't understand your answer. I think it's a yes or no. Do you think that homosexual--homosexuality, or homosexual conduct should be illegal today? That's a yes or no question."

Moore: "Homosexual conduct should be illegal, yes."

Hopefully you'll agree that yet again Moore is saying that the Supreme court overstepped, making something legal when it had been illegal... so that when he says homosexual conduct should be illegal, he thinks he's decrying Supreme Court overstep. Had the interviewer understood and asked

"So how should it have been made legal?"

Moore would have replied that the citizenry can instruct its elected legislature to make it legal if that's their desire. That's probably what his "now, if you want..." was leading into when the interviewed interrupted him- and definitely it's how he should have answered the question. Instead he shows no social intelligence, leaving the interviewer and audience with no idea why he emphasized that word and nothing except the meme that Moore thinks homosexuality should be illegal.

Next is his hopeless defense against the accusations. Lets not forget that Trump was similarly accused, yet won. Trump denied he even knew them and that was that. Whereas Moore and his defenders picked at the stories and pounced on the most minor discrepancy- e.g. a dumpster being at the side rather than back of a restaurant. They brought out witnesses who never saw either Moore or the complainant at the restaurant- as if that means anything. As a good old girl puts it: he protested too much. But still I'm not convinced that's what did him in. As per last night, previously he only just won Chief Justice against a little-known contender at the same time as Sessions was unassailable.

Finally there's the large turnout, double what was predicted which is remarkable for a special election in December. Especially black voters who were all in for Jones. Something motivated those voters to get out and help change a result.