Post-mortems aren’t always fun. Yet, one can excuse those Republicans who rejoice over Steve Bannon’s humiliating defeat
in yesterday’s Alabama senate race. It takes strategic political genius for a
Republican to lose a senate seat in Alabama, but Roy Moore did it. And, he did
it under the aegis of that great political strategist, Steve Bannon.
Roger Simon has this to say:
The big
loser in Tuesday's Alabama's special Senate election was not the Republican
Party. They had already lost weeks ago, the moment the Washington Post wrote their
(carefully vetted, in this instance) exposé of the thirty-year-old sexual
proclivities of Judge Roy Moore.
It was
checkmate from the start. In this #MeToo era with politicians flying out
the window as fast as you can say Conyers and Franken, the Republicans were
damned if they did and damned if they didn't -- support Moore, that is.
And Moore didn't do himself any favors with an execrable performance
during an interview with Sean Hannity shortly after the allegations. He was, to
put it mildly, not ready for prime time. To be honest, Moore sounded pretty
dopey, even if he was innocent, which he didn't come close to proving.
In many
ways, the Republicans are lucky not to have Moore to deal with in Congress.
They can face obvious White House aspirant Kirsten Gillibrand and her
merry band of hypocrites with a straight face.
No, the
big loser Tuesday is Steve Bannon, the sometime movie producer cum finance
expert cum political strategist that some claim put Donald Trump in office and
then left the White House to better support the president from without, or so
he said. In this instance -- purportedly to do that, I guess -- he went against
Trump, who originally backed the more establishment candidate Luther Strange,
to back one of Bannon's own, Judge Moore.
The only real difference between Luther Strange and Roy
Moore was that Strange would surely have won. And, Strange appeared to be a decent human being.
One understands that Moore and
Bannon supporters will be out in force blaming it all on the Washington Post,
but, as Simon explains, some of the charges against Moore were highly credible.
Besides, for all his Bible talk, Roy Moore did not strike very many people as a
moral individual. Accusations were not proved in court, but people get an
impression of a man and that impression counts. Roy Moore seemed sleazy and indecent. Keep in mind, Sen. Richard
Shelby said he could not vote for Roy Moore. He knows the man better than most
of the rest of us.
In fact, if Roy Moore had
been as moral as he claimed, he would have known that: Pride goeth before
destruction. His refusal to drop out of the race was prideful. A little
humility, taking one for the party, would have shown him to be a man of
character. He wasn’t. And he lost.
The Daily Caller piled on:
“This
is a brutal reminder that candidate quality matters regardless of where you are
running,” Steve Law, president of the Senate Leadership Fund, a Republican
super PAC, said in a statement. “Not only did Steve Bannon cost us a critical
Senate seat in one of the most Republican states in the country, but he also
dragged the President of the United States into his fiasco,” Law said.
It quoted a number of conservative commentators.
Ben Shapiro:
Bannon’s
sure showing those establishment cucks a thing or two right now.
Rich Lowry:
Steve
Bannon's campaign to depose Mitch McConnell takes a big step forward, by
throwing away a seat in a ruby red state.
Josh Holmes:
Before
we get the results, I'd just like to thank Steve Bannon for showing us how to
lose the reddest state in the union and Governor Ivey for the opportunity to
make this national embarrassment a reality.
Dana Loesch:
Next
time maybe Bannon will won’t fight Trump’s primary endorsement out of ego and
cost the GOP a senate seat.
Roy Moore lost. No one is crying for Roy Moore. As of now Steve Bannon looks to be the biggest loser. That might turn out to be a
blessing for the Republican Party.
If you want to take the measure of Bannon, see whether he can show any humility at his loss or whether he tries to scapegoat someone else for his failure.
7 comments:
at least the GOP gets this trash out into the gutter where he belongs.
I'm relieved he didn't win. The controversy over him would never, never have ended. We know that for a fact by realizing that the controversy over Trump has never, never ended. It would have just been all distraction, all the time. It is a shame about Luther strange though.
Luther Strange was dirty for different reasons, and would have had to deal with the same withering attacks from the MSM as Moore did.
Don't blame Bannon; at least he was on the right side. Blame the senate scum that did Moore in--particularly Richard Shelby and Jeff Flake.
And do not think that the GOP will win this seat back in 2020. These guys are hard to dislodge.
I see Moore got 81% of the white evangelical voters (by exit polls). That's something for which he can be proud.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-roy-moore-evangelical-vote-20171213-story.html
Andrew Whitehead, a sociologist at Clemson University in South Carolina who studies Christian nationalism, said evangelicals are the religious group most likely to identify with Christian nationalism. Alabama has one of the highest percentages of white evangelicals, .... "The view is that God can use anybody as long as they're promoting Christian nationalist or ideals or values," Whitehead said.
It's a small victory for the Democrats, given how many seats they have to still defend in 2018. I also see Moore's votes plus write in votes was in the majority, so the GOP can take it back in 2020 by running a slightly more humble candidate next time. I see Jeff Sessions got 97% of the vote in 2014 (unopposed), and 63% in 2008, so maybe he'll be back in the senate for 2021?
"Whitehead [...] said evangelicals are the religious group most likely to identify with Christian nationalism"
"Whitehead was quick to note that political ideology and party affiliation remain the most powerful predictors in the survey for how people voted in 2017."
Democraticunderground.com isn't the best source for scientific facts, Ares. Besides, his study had a 13.6% response rate. Hardly classifies as "authoritative". But I'm sure it works for you, what with your science and math background and all.
If we want some solid, all we really can see is votes among voter turnout, although this was special election, while 2008 highest, was a presidential year.
1996 - Sessions 786,436 52.45%, Democrat 681,651 45.46%
2002 - Sessions 792,561 58.58% Democrat 538,878 39.83%
2008 - Sessions 1,305,383 63.36%, Democrat 752,391 36.52%
2014 - Sessions 795,606 97.25% (unopposed)
2018 - Moore 650,436 48.4%, Democrat 671,151 49.9%, write in 22,819 1.7%
Its less clear that I like, but shows much lower turnout, possibly as a special election, or possibly many republicans were too disgusted to care to vote at all, and not voting is a default vote for whomever wins.
Try this view of the election...RINOS sacrifice Senate seat to put upstart trash in their place...
One thing you can say for Trumps election is that it exposed the Republicans in Congress(and especially the leadership) for what they really are...and it's not our elected Representative.
Post a Comment