>>>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 don't think Moore even gets such logic. Ditto his commentary re constitutional amendments after the 10th being repealed: only those willing to dig deep will see past the simple retort that amendments after the 10th are the ones that foreswore slavery and gave the vote to blacks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, which is something he definitely needed to learn if he wants 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.

..or one can say his intellectual dribble is merely him attempting to mask is flagrant bigotry.

This is his spokesman talking - watch this its really funny :) ..it's 10 minutes long but it's worth the laugh to watch it. I found this hilarious - put me in a better mood - about the 9 minute mark gets to the Muslim thing lol lol.
https://www.cnn.com/2017/12/12/politics/tapper-moore-interview/index.html
...I hope Saturday Night Live does a skit on it.

>As for the gay thing: I think Moore's religions 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 just wanting a yes or no, and without 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

I see your point - but keep in mind your talking about one interview. If you go back and listen to many of the other things he's said regarding homosexuals you see a pattern of what I would call hate towards them.
Now if you are a proponent of gay rights you're going to have a problem here regardless of if you split his religious beliefs from his legal beliefs - because they both result in the same thing - he's against it. If he becomes an elected official and thus has the power to help enact laws obviously his intent would be to outlaw same-sex marriage and possibly attempt to outlaw homosexual conduct - because that what he's actions and words say he wants to do.

>"So how do you think sodomy should be made legal?"
>
>Moore would have replied that the citizenry can instruct its elected legislature to make it legal if that's their desire. Instead he left the interviewer and audience with no idea, just the impression that Moore thinks homosexuality should be illegal... and he's painted himself into another corner IMHO.
>
>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.

Trump denied he even knew them, but as you can see that's coming back to haunt him now. Roy claimed repeatedly that he didn't even know any of his accusers, but of course this contradicted his earlier defenses.

>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.

Yes I think that was a key part of it - the voter turnout. There are plenty of people who say higher the voter turnout, the better the democrats do - but in reality I don't think you can statistically show that to be true enough of the time to make that a general claim. However - if EVERYONE voted, the progressives / democrats would win every time. Very interesting paper I read on that a while back.can be found here: http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/politics/faculty/nagler/leighley_nagler_midwest2007.pdf
...but like you said - in this particular election voter turnout made all the difference in the world - no question about that.