Alabama Special Election 2017

[Joey D]

These are some pretty serious claims. Do you have some links to positively establish the "conservative party" is being controlled by proven racist interest groups specifically against blacks? You also put that Roy Moore statement in quotes, meaning those are his words, yet I can't find any link in a Google search that ties him to that statement. Do you have a link to that also?

While he didn't say that specifically he did say the following:

“I think it was great at the time when families were united — even though we had slavery — they cared for one another…. Our families were strong, our country had a direction.” (source)

This was in response to a question posed about the last time America was great. So taking Moore's statements at face value, he apparently thinks the last time America was great was when several southerners thought it was OK to own blacks as property.

From the same article, he also referred to Native Americans and Asian Americans as "reds and yellows", which is incredibly outdated and fairly racist in today's world.

I have no doubt Moore is a bigot. But when you look at the cultural make-up of the Southern US, I think you'll find many whites are racists, especially if they're older, which is a shame.

I refuse to visit anywhere in the south outside of maybe touristy parts of Florida because of their views on race, religion, and the fact that they continue to hold onto a symbol of a traitorist nation.

 

[Racelow]

These are some pretty serious claims. Do you have some links to positively establish the "conservative party" is being controlled by proven racist interest groups specifically against blacks? You also put that Roy Moore statement in quotes, meaning those are his words, yet I can't find any link in a Google search that ties him to that statement. Do you have a link to that also?

Unlike a video game, this topic is about reality that people face on a daily basis. How dare you ask a stupid question to back a claim up with some type of source?!? I am your source of this claim... If you are not living in this reality or are in some other part of the world unaware of whats happening over here, stop trying to refute others as if this is some type of GT vs forza topic.

 

[Johnnypenso]

While he didn't say that specifically he did say the following:

“I think it was great at the time when families were united — even though we had slavery — they cared for one another…. Our families were strong, our country had a direction.” (source)

This was in response to a question posed about the last time America was great. So taking Moore's statements at face value, he apparently thinks the last time America was great was when several southerners thought it was OK to own blacks as property.

From the same article, he also referred to Native Americans and Asian Americans as "reds and yellows", which is incredibly outdated and fairly racist in today's world. Feel free to make all the opinions you want to however, no sources required.

I have no doubt Moore is a bigot. But when you look at the cultural make-up of the Southern US, I think you'll find many whites are racists, especially if they're older, which is a shame.

I refuse to visit anywhere in the south outside of maybe touristy parts of Florida because of their views on race, religion, and the fact that they continue to hold onto a symbol of a traitorist nation.

I don't doubt Moore is a racist and a deplorable human being all around IMO. But GTP has rules about being truthful and while the gist of the quote is accurate in the general sense, a quote implies that something was said, word for word, and that is not the case. Accuracy is important and this was inaccurate.

Unlike a video game, this topic is about reality that people face on a daily basis. How dare you ask a stupid question to back a claim up with some type of source?!? I am your source of this claim... If you are not living in this reality or are in some other part of the world unaware of whats happening over here, stop trying to refute others as if this is some type of GT vs forza topic.

See above. On top of that, the rules of this site are the same for the GT Forum, the Forza Forum and the O&CE Forum. If you make a factual claim, as you made, you are expected to support your claim with sources if requested. Feel free to express all the opinions you like however, no sources required.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Unlike a video game, this topic is about reality that people face on a daily basis. How dare you ask a stupid question to back a claim up with some type of source?!? I am your source of this claim... If you are not living in this reality or are in some other part of the world stop trying to refute others as if this is some type of GT vs forza topic.

How dare he what? First off most of the members talking in here contribute to the OCE sub forum, and have done so for years. Typically people who bring up the fact that this forum is based on the info of a popular racing/driving game, and use it as a defense of some sort, tend to be quite new and have yet to experience the ins and outs of threads. Also him asking for back up to the claims made is something you sort of agreed to when you signed the AUP for the forum. If you claim something that is knowingly false and have no way to back it up you should retract it.

So once again, welcome to the forum, the forum doesn't change just because you transition from the Forza subforums or GT/GTS subforums, to these ones. Same rules apply if you make a statement and someone asks you to provide info to said statement, you probably should. @Joey D did provide the information that was most similar to the claim you made. Which wasn't the claim as you quoted it to be, but still is highly deplorable.

 

[Johnnypenso]

deleted...double

 

[Racelow]

How dare he what? First off most of the members talking in here contribute to the OCE sub forum, and have done so for years. Typically people who bring up the fact that this forum is based on the info of a popular racing/driving game, and use it as a defense of some sort, tend to be quite new and have yet to experience the ins and outs of threads. Also him asking for back up to the claims made is something you sort of agreed to when you signed the AUP for the forum. If you claim something that is knowingly false and have no way to back it up you should retract it.

So once again, welcome to the forum, the forum doesn't change just because you transition from the Forza subforums or GT/GTS subforums, to these ones. Same rules apply if you make a statement and someone asks you to provide info to said statement, you probably should. @Joey D did provide the information that was most similar to the claim you made. Which wasn't the claim as you quoted it to be, but still is highly deplorable.

What you want to know huh? You trying to say what I said is knowingly false? Because this looks like it is beginning to get ugly. You should just back off.

 

[Jezza819]

I was born in Alabama and I've lived here all of my 52 years now. I've seen a lot of bizarre things in this state in my lifetime. The way Republicans attached themselves to Roy Moore over his entire political career is right at the top of the list. The Republican party in this state is ruled by two things, religion and rednecks.

When Moore got canned the first time from his position as Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court because he had a monument to the 10 commandments put on the floor of the Alabama Judicial Building and then he defied a federal court order to have it removed. Now ordinarily being removed from office would ruin someone's political career, but not in Alabama. The religious fanatics loved it. "Go get 'em Roy" "He stood up for God", etc. (Remember those phrases as they will come back later). The rednecks loved it because they looked at it as flipping the federal government the middle finger.

Fast forward 10 years and Ole Roy is runnin' again for his old Chief Justice job. Now I'm thinking surely Alabama voters aren't foolish enough to elect this idiot again. But once again Alabama voters lived down to their reputations and put him back in office. And once again he tried to use religion to shape how he came up with his judgements. This time in 2016 he was once again suspended from office for openly defying the legalization of same sex marriages in Alabama. And once again the religious nuts ate it up because if it's one thing Alabama Republicans hate is gay people.

Now we get to this Senate Special Election. Ole Roy decides that he needs to take his talents to the floor of the United States Senate. He makes it through the Republican primary. Surely he is a shoe in to defeat a Democrat. The religious and redneck factions are kicking in strong and a Democrat hasn't won a Senate election in this state in 25 years. Then the allegations start coming in and he starts opening his mouth spewing these ridiculous statements about how much better the country was even when we had slavery. But still the religious right supports him. Remember those phrases I talked about earlier, they were being used again by his supporters. "He stood up for God" "He's just a good Christian man".

But a funny thing happened on the way to the Moore coronation, Alabama suddenly got a conscience. More than just us Democrats turned out to vote. African Americans turned out to vote in big numbers. People that just couldn't stomach a vote for Moore either stayed home, wrote in someone else, or voted for Doug Jones.

Now I'm hoping that this finally puts the last nail in the Moore political coffin. But I also know that probably this little glimmer of hope that Alabama has finally come out of the dark ages is going to be short lived. The Republicans would have learned their lesson and will run someone in 2020 that they can all get behind and he will probably win by 15% or more. This state does not like progress and seems to love dwelling in the bottom. Alabama, first alphabetically, dead last in everything else.

 

[Biggles]

I think you are misunderstanding what I mean when I say something is a "factor". Race is a factor in pretty much every election held in the US because race is a defining issue in the US. It is not the only defining issue & therefore it is not necessarily a KEY factor, but it is a significant factor because in every Presidential election an overwhelming majority of African Americans vote Democrat.

Gender is also a factor, because typically women vote more for Democrats than men. However, the margin of difference is usually a relatively narrow one. The same with age. Younger voters typically favour the Democrats, older voters the Republicans. However, the margin in those cases is a relatively narrow one - perhaps 10 - 15 points at most. When it comes to race, the margin of difference between the way whites & blacks vote is a chasm. In fact, the voting history of African Americans in the US is so consistent that it's treated as a given. If black voters were suddenly to split their vote 50/50 between the two major parties, it would have a seismic effect on American politics.

Your argument about the number of black voters as a percentage of the total possible electorate in Alabama remains entirely irrelevant. Elections are decided by those who vote. Furthermore, as the Alabama senate race was decided by about 20,000 votes, a very small number of votes one way or another effectively determined the outcome. I am, in any case, not arguing that the black vote was the KEY factor in the recent election - it would only have had an important effect if the black vote differed significantly from historical precedent - which I am not sure it did. More likely, the white GOP vote was depressed by how unattractive a candidate Roy Moore was. Nevertheless, the extreme racial divide in all Alabama elections is a consistent fact. While the black vote is overwhelmingly Democratic, as it is in most parts of the country, the white vote is heavily Republican, which exaggerates the racial divide in voting beyond what it would be in a more centrist state.

Finally, you provide no evidence at all that the sentiment among African Americans who didn't vote is significantly different from those that did. There's no reason to suppose that this is the case.

I don't know what experience you have with sampling and data collecting, but if you took 9 to 10% of what you had and tried to expand that to even 50% of the population, you'd have a massive potential for a margin of error. So why you've decided to do that here, and then claim that evidence must be provide is silly, because the evidence is there, you do the math.

I don't know what experience you have with polling ... but the principle behind polling is PRECISELY to take a small sampling of the population - typically way, way smaller than 29% - & extrapolate that to the entire population. That's how polling works. The margin of error is not "massive" it's usually within 3 - 4 points at the most - not likely to make a big dent in a 96% - 4% split .

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I think you are misunderstanding what I mean when I say something to be a "factor". Race is a factor in pretty much every election held in the US because race is a defining issue in the US. It is not the only defining issue & therefore it is not necessarily a KEY factor, but it is a significant factor because in every Presidential election an overwhelming majority of African Americans vote Democrat.


View attachment 700098

No one denied that so why you keep bringing it up as if it was denied is strange. What was said by me is that I saw your initial post as a call to arms that the state and others surrounding it were still deeply rooted in racism, based on low yield stats given by WP. I also said because of how perceived your initial post that this is not a sign of racism, nor can it be expanded to the entire voter population of the state when not even half or a majority actually went to voice their opinion on the special election. End of.

Gender is also a factor, because typically women vote more for Democrats than men. However, the margin of difference is usually a relatively narrow one. The same with age. Younger voters typically favour the Democrats, older voters the Republicans. However, the margin in those cases is a relatively narrow one - perhaps 10 - 15 points at most. When it comes to race, the margin of difference between the way whites & blacks vote is a chasm. In fact, the voting history of African Americans in the US is so consistent that it's treated as a given. If black voters were suddenly to split their vote 50/50 between the two major parties, it would have a seismic effect on American politics.

Yes biggles well aware, hence why I said what I said in my post. That's why I said that typically one part can expect more votes for them from a certain race than the other and same goes for gender, age, religious affiliation and so on. All of this would in fact point to the reality that black people don't see it as racism to vote conservative but more so that their values don't align with most conservatives.

Your argument about the number of black voters as a percentage of the total possible electorate in Alabama remains entirely irrelevant. Elections are decided by those who vote. Furthermore, as the Alabama senate race was decided by about 20,000 votes, a very small number of votes one way or another effectively determined the outcome. I am, in any case, not arguing that the black vote was the KEY factor in the recent election - it would only have had an important effect if the black vote differed significantly from historical precedent - which I am not sure it did. More likely, the white GOP vote was depressed by how unattractive a candidate Roy Moore was. Nevertheless, the extreme racial divide in all Alabama elections is a consistent fact. While the black vote is overwhelmingly Democratic, as it is in most parts of the country, the white vote is heavily Republican, which exaggerates the racial divide in voting beyond what it would be in a more centrist state.

No it really doesn't because 96% of those who did vote was small, this time it was large enough to barely tip the scale in favor of the long shot chance winner. However, had the actual numbers of evangelical whites and whites in general as well as those registered to vote that you seem to think could have won it for Moore showed up, then this would be a how could the dems have won this rather. The point is the amount of people who could and should have easily won this for Jones based on a deplorable opponent like Moore, wasn't seen and that's a bigger issue to me. People simply didn't care as much as they should have. However, it's like you said, it's a State election and not going to draw the same numbers as a national one.

Finally, you provide no evidence at all that the sentiment among African Americans who didn't vote is significantly different from those that did. There's no reason to suppose that this is the case.

No what I said is you can't because they didn't voice their opinion, it's a two way street, you can't extrapolate figures on a small margin and say "yeap this is how the entire population of this group would have voted had the entire population voted". That's not how it works if it was stats and other relative scenarios wouldn't be so hard to project or solve. All you can say in this is that those who voted that were black didn't want Moore as their representative. I've said from the get said you can't prove those who didn't voice, not that they would vote significantly different or the same, we just don't know. You drawing the conclusion though is the issue and has been the issue, trying to contort me saying as if Black would easily side with a reprehensible guy is not my argument. It's the loose way of you using numbers that I have issue with.

What you want to know huh? You trying to say what I said is knowingly false? Because this looks like it is beginning to get ugly. You should just back off.

Well considering it wasn't what was actually said, and you put up a fit in a child like manner when asked for facts, and now are threatening a member (another offense against the AUP)... It should be clear what the answer is.

 

[Biggles]

@ LMSCorvetteGT2

I feel like I am caught in some bizarre logical twilight-zone. What I said, initially, was:

What is fairly shocking to me, is that 68% of white voters still cast their vote for Roy Moore ... & that includes 52% of college educated white women. 79% of white non-college educated white men voted for Roy Moore. This is an indication of the way people think in the deep red states & how deeply rooted race still is as a factor in US life.

You have spent many paragraphs over multiple posts arguing with me on this observation. I have never come out & said that Alabamians are "racist", only that race is still a factor in US life. On the other hand, Joey comes flat out & posts that "many whites are racists".

I have no doubt Moore is a bigot. But when you look at the cultural make-up of the Southern US, I think you'll find many whites are racists, especially if they're older, which is a shame.

I refuse to visit anywhere in the south outside of maybe touristy parts of Florida because of their views on race, religion, and the fact that they continue to hold onto a symbol of a traitorist nation.

.

And you are happy to "like" that post? Where's the logic in that? For the record: I go to Alabama every year, twice a year, on business, & have been doing so for the last 25 years. I have good friends in Alabama, they are not racist & they don't vote Republican.

That race is a factor in voting, in the US in general, & Alabama in particular, is a glaringly, mathematically indisputable fact. That it was THE key factor in the recent election, I have never maintained. As Jezza819 has (somewhat poignantly) posted, there were a number of factors that combined to cause the narrow defeat of Roy Moore. It would be impossible to separate out one factor in isolation.

you can't extrapolate figures on a small margin and say "yeap this is how the entire population of this group would have voted had the entire population voted". That's not how it works if it was stats and other relative scenarios wouldn't be so hard to project or solve. All you can say in this is that those who voted that were black didn't want Moore as their representative. I've said from the get said you can't prove those who didn't voice, not that they would vote significantly different or the same, we just don't know. You drawing the conclusion though is the issue and has been the issue, trying to contort me saying as if Black would easily side with a reprehensible guy is not my argument. It's the loose way of you using numbers that I have issue with.

Yes, you can. As I've already said: that's how polling works. It takes a small sampling of a population & then extrapolates for the population as a whole. It's a method that is not just used for politics but for a whole variety of practical applications. Of course polling is not 100% accurate. Polls always include a calculated margin of error, but when the polling shows a 96% to 4% split it is so one-sided as to make the results mathematically indisputable. Why you continue to argue this point is beyond me, but I don't have the time or patience to continue repeating the obvious.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

@ LMSCorvetteGT2

I feel like I am caught in some bizarre logical twilight-zone. What I said, initially, was:



You have spent many paragraphs over multiple posts arguing with me on this observation. I have never come out & said that Alabamians are "racist", only that race is still a factor in US life. On the other hand, Joey comes flat out & posts that "many whites are racists".

Water is wet as well.

And you are happy to "like" that post? Where's the logic in that? For the record: I go to Alabama every year, twice a year, on business, & have been doing so for the last 25 years. I have good friends in Alabama, they are not racist & they don't vote Republican.

My own experiences, I don't fully agree with what he said, I don't think all older whites are racist nor that even the majority of them are, but it's clear from other surrounding states that racism is still alive. But anyone with any form of simple thought can say that with certainty.

That race is a factor in voting, in the US in general, & Alabama in particular, is a glaringly, mathematically indisputable fact. That it was THE key factor in the recent election, I have never maintained. As Jezza819 has (somewhat poignantly) posted, there were a number of factors that combined to cause the narrow defeat of Roy Moore. It would be impossible to separate out one factor in isolation.

Which once again was never disputed. It seemed like you were trying to signify that the way those stats came about indicated to you that their is bigotry still alive in deep red states (paraphrasing you). So If this wasn't your point then that's fine sorry for not understanding you, simply coming out and saying it wasn't your point from the get go would have been nice. Because it seemed as we continually went forward that you were arguing from that perspective.

Yes, you can. As I've already said: that's how polling works. It takes a small sampling of a population & then extrapolates for the population as a whole. It's a method that is not just used for politics but for a whole variety of practical applications. Of course polling is not 100% accurate. Polls always include a calculated margin of error, but when the polling shows a 96% to 4% split it is so one-sided as to make the results mathematically indisputable. Why you continue to argue this point is beyond me, but I don't have the time or patience to continue repeating the obvious.

Polling is guess work, it's not a mathematical certainty or even a proper way of expanding upon stats, it's trying to put number to social, economic, gender, race and so on other variable to predict elections. By lumping that into current trends and historical trends, they then come up with a forecast/prediction of what will happen. Actual statistical findings doesn't do this so much as it gets within a certain margin of error and tells you the probability of something happening again. You can't possibly calculate the social unknowns of Humans and come up with a working margin of error.

If election polling was so on the money, Roy Moore would have won this state, and Hillary Clinton would have won various states she should of.

The math once again only proves that black voters massively didn't want Roy Moore, for those who actually voted, 10% is what you're trying to say dictates the rest of those that didn't say anything. That is why this argument has gone on between you and I and will continue. You can't say 10% of a sample tells you the story on the rest of the population. It would be much more beneficial to take more samples instead. This is not me saying it isn't possible that 96% of the entire African american vote, in those that did and didn't would vote Jones over Moore. Rather I'm saying you're use of numbers to say that it was mathematically proven is wrong, because it wasn't.

 

[Scaff]

Members here need to remember that the AUP applies equally and in the same manner across every part of the site.

I'm not deleting posts as the resulting conversation would make no sense, but points carrying warnings have been issued.

 

[Spurgy 777]

I'm not sure why you are in denial about this: when 96 (NINETY SIX!) per cent of blacks vote in favour of one candidate, then race IS a factor. I would say this is a pretty "heavy" indication of a white vs black voter mentality. How much higher a percentage would it need to be to convince you?

As I have already said, this does not mean that everyone who voted against Jones is racist. Moore lost because he was a terrible candidate, pushed forward by "right wing activists" at the primary voting stage where voter participation is very small, making it easier for an extremist candidate with a dedicated base of support to be nominated. It's reasonable to suppose that a more moderate GOP candidate would have won.

The "abysmal voter turnout" (a little over 40%) is neither here nor there - the voter participation was not untypical for a "non-presidential" election. However, given how close the election was, even a quite small suppression of the GOP turnout based on Moore's unpalatability would have been enough to tip the balance in Jones favour.

Except 96% of blacks didn't vote Democrat, only 39% did, just as only 24% of white people voted Republican. To extrapolate that onto the people that didn't vote would be to assume that everyone who didn't vote didn't care/was too lazy (although you could argue in that case that they don't really have much of a preference) and excludes the possibility that 60% of people didn't vote because they didn't like either candidate. The reason polling can predict election results with some degree of accuracy and can be extrapolated to the total population is because they take into account whether or not people are likely to vote so all the people that won't vote for either candidate are discounted.

On a side note I find it funny that a certain someone thinks black people are being prevented from voting when they had a higher turnout than white people in this election.

 

[Danoff]

Except 96% of blacks didn't vote Democrat, only 39% did, just as only 24% of white people voted Republican. To extrapolate that onto the people that didn't vote would be to assume that everyone who didn't vote didn't care/was too lazy (although you could argue in that case that they don't really have much of a preference) and excludes the possibility that 60% of people didn't vote because they didn't like either candidate.

Just as an aside, you just described the electoral college.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Except 96% of blacks didn't vote Democrat, only 39% did, just as only 24% of white people voted Republican. To extrapolate that onto the people that didn't vote would be to assume that everyone who didn't vote didn't care/was too lazy (although you could argue in that case that they don't really have much of a preference) and excludes the possibility that 60% of people didn't vote because they didn't like either candidate. The reason polling can predict election results with some degree of accuracy and can be extrapolated to the total population is because they take into account whether or not people are likely to vote so all the people that won't vote for either candidate are discounted.

On a side note I find it funny that a certain someone thinks black people are being prevented from voting when they had a higher turnout than white people in this election.

Put another way, it boils down to the fact that those voting are not a random sample of the population and thus you can't generalize their behaviour to the general public. Polling and the resultant extrapolation of the results is based on random sampling, and without it, the whole process falls apart.

 

[Biggles]

Let me see if I've got this straight:

I don't think all older whites are racist nor that even the majority of them are, but it's clear from other surrounding states that racism is still alive. But anyone with any form of simple thought can say that with certainty.

Water is wet as well.

So you believe that racism in the south "is still alive". You apparently believe it with "certainty" ... in fact, it's as clear to you as the fact that "water is wet".

... then you attack me for implying that there is racism in the south.

. It seemed like you were trying to signify that the way those stats came about indicated to you that their is bigotry still alive in deep red states (paraphrasing you).

You attack the very position you yourself have just espoused.

If fact, I (deliberately) never used the term "bigotry". What I said was:

This is an indication of the way people think in the deep red states & how deeply rooted race still is as a factor in US life.

This seems self evident due to the deep divide between the voting of blacks & whites in Alabama (a deep divide that is not unique to this particular election).

You seem to be hung up on my use of "stats", and particularly on the fact that only 29% of the black electorate voted. That 29% voted by a margin of 24:1 for the Democratic candidate. You, & apparently JohnnyP & Splurgy, seem to believe that this tells us nothing at all about the attitude of blacks in Alabama in general. Fair enough - you are entitled to your beliefs. However, attacking me for implying that racism exists in the south while explicitly stating yourself that "racism is still alive" is a bit of a head-scratcher.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Let me see if I've got this straight:





So you believe that racism in the south "is still alive". You apparently believe it with "certainty" ... in fact, it's as clear to you as the fact that "water is wet".

... then you attack me for implying that there is racism in the south.

You have a way with contorting wording, it's quite interesting, no where do I say that I believe racism in the south is still alive, I believe there is racism every where. Thus it is a factor for those who choose to use it as one, when they vote. Saying that there isn't racism would be quite inane and need a large amount of proof. As I said in a prior post it's obvious there is a racist sentiment for a niche collective of people in that region hence some of the hate groups that reside there.

You attack the very position you yourself have just espoused.

No Biggles, I attacked your use of trying to extrapolate exit poll figures for a larger group that didn't vote, I've told you this several times, yet you wish to keep shifting what I'm saying even after I've made it clear. Others have also echoed what I've said and understood my perspective. You are the only one struggling to find footing one what I'm saying, or just aptly wish not to. Only you know.

If fact, I (deliberately) never used the term "bigotry". What I said was:



This seems self evident due to the deep divide between the voting of blacks & whites in Alabama (a deep divide that is not unique to this particular election).

You seem to be hung up on my use of "stats", and particularly on the fact that only 29% of the black electorate voted. That 29% voted by a margin of 24:1 for the Democratic candidate. You, & apparently JohnnyP & Splurgy, seem to believe that this tells us nothing at all about the attitude of blacks in Alabama in general. Fair enough - you are entitled to your beliefs. However, attacking me for implying that racism exists in the south while explicitly stating yourself that "racism is still alive" is a bit of a head-scratcher.

Hence the "paraphrasing you" portion that you seemed to glaze over, I don't claim you used bigot, zealot or any other word of that nature. What I'm saying is that the idea I took from your post was that, people should have easily not voted Moore based on his horrible ethical/moral values. And that people who did vote for him seem to show the same mantra of values stereotypical claimed in deep red states.

What's more perplexing, is I call you out on your use of numbers to contrive a broad stroke idea of an entire voting poll, and you've noted that, yet you still seem to think I'm arguing racism existing or not in half of this quoted post. As for how black in general vote, until you can provide broader polling numbers, all that can be said is of the 29% of black voters in the 38% voter turn out, 96% voted Jones. So for that sample size that's all you can speak on. If you took another sample size and they voted majority wise for Moore, you still couldn't extrapolate one or the other. So I never attacked you for existing racism, that's obvious any where you go you can find racism, what I disliked what you trying to manipulate stats to fit your political view point.

 

[Johnnypenso]

You seem to be hung up on my use of "stats", and particularly on the fact that only 29% of the black electorate voted. That 29% voted by a margin of 24:1 for the Democratic candidate. You, & apparently JohnnyP & Splurgy, seem to believe that this tells us nothing at all about the attitude of blacks in Alabama in general. Fair enough - you are entitled to your beliefs. However, attacking me for implying that racism exists in the south while explicitly stating yourself that "racism is still alive" is a bit of a head-scratcher.

Let's not be over dramatic here. I didn't say the polls tell us "nothing" about the attitudes of blacks in Alabama, I said you can't generalize or extrapolate results from a sample when the sample isn't random. Meaning you can't make a 1:1 extrapolation of the election results to the general population. That's Statistics 101. It's also the reason why political pundits often predict that in closer elections, voter turnout will sway the election.

This PEW poll sheds a great deal of light on how voter turnout affects elections. Essentially, about half of the population falls into the middle of the political spectrum and yet they are anywhere from only 50-66% as likely to always vote in a low turnout election. Low voter turnout affects the middle of the spectrum the most. Thus using the people who actually turned out as a sample to extrapolate from isn't random, because the level of turnout affects what kind of voter actually turns up to vote.

 

[ryzno]

Y'all want to see racial bias in an election with no mud slinging? Check out our Mayoral election we just had in Atlanta.

 

[Biggles]

You have a way with contorting wording, it's quite interesting, no where do I say that I believe racism in the south is still alive,

Really? I "have a way with contorting wording"? I'm not contorting ... I'm straight ahead quoting!

it's clear from other surrounding states that racism is still alive. But anyone with any form of simple thought can say that with certainty.

You, on the other hand, feel entitled to "paraphrase" me.

. It seemed like you were trying to signify that the way those stats came about indicated to you that their is bigotry still alive in deep red states (paraphrasing you). So If this wasn't your point then that's fine sorry for not understanding you, simply coming out and saying it wasn't your point from the get go would have been nice. Because it seemed as we continually went forward that you were arguing from that perspective.

I have never spoken about "bigotry" at all, that's because it was not really the point of my original comment.
What I said was:

What is fairly shocking to me, is that 68% of white voters still cast their vote for Roy Moore ... & that includes 52% of college educated white women. 79% of white non-college educated white men voted for Roy Moore. This is an indication of the way people think in the deep red states & how deeply rooted race still is as a factor in US life.

The US, & especially the southern states, are still deeply divided by race. This seems to be a self-evident statement based on the voting pattern in Alabama, but instead of addressing this issue you choose to dismiss it by focusing on the fact that a lot of people didn't vote. It really doesn't matter: the fact that there is such huge divide among the people who did vote is startling enough.

In the last Presidential election voter national turnout was only about 54%. If 96% of women voted for one candidate & 68% of men voted for the other candidate that would be seen as an indication of massive gender divide in US society. Would you simply dismiss that reality because 45% of the population didn't vote?

Let's not be over dramatic here. I didn't say the polls tell us "nothing" about the attitudes of blacks in Alabama, I said you can't generalize or extrapolate results from a sample when the sample isn't random. Meaning you can't make a 1:1 extrapolation of the election results to the general population. That's Statistics 101. It's also the reason why political pundits often predict that in closer elections, voter turnout will sway the election.

This PEW poll sheds a great deal of light on how voter turnout affects elections. Essentially, about half of the population falls into the middle of the political spectrum and yet they are anywhere from only 50-66% as likely to always vote in a low turnout election. Low voter turnout affects the middle of the spectrum the most. Thus using the people who actually turned out as a sample to extrapolate from isn't random, because the level of turnout affects what kind of voter actually turns up to vote.

I agree with everything you said. But I'm not trying to make a 1:1 extrapolation of the election results to the general population. I'm saying that when you have a dramatically high ratio of 24:1 in voting it would be unreasonable not to expect it to be reflected to significant degree in the general population.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Really? I "have a way with contorting wording"? I'm not contorting ... I'm straight ahead quoting!

Quoting something and then trying to argue or understand it's perspective are two different things really. Yes you've quoted me. No you've not done a great job understanding me where several other members seemingly have (agreeing or not).

You, on the other hand, feel entitled to "paraphrase" me.

If by entitled you mean, doing so out of respect to inform others and yourself reading said paraphrase that it wasn't the actual wording of the author (you), then sure. If not then refer to what I said. You seemingly have an attitude as we continue forth that shows you can't even conduct civil back and forth, and try to paint me as some bad guy of sorts.

Not entitled trying to give you the same respect I'd give others, I simply said I paraphrased your wording to show it wasn't word for word quoting and to convey what I took from the original meaning.

I have never spoken about "bigotry" at all, that's because it was not really the point of my original comment.
What I said was:

The US, & especially the southern states, are still deeply divided by race. This seems to be a self-evident statement based on the voting pattern in Alabama, but instead of addressing this issue you choose to dismiss it by focusing on the fact that a lot of people didn't vote. It really doesn't matter: the fact that there is such huge divide among the people who did vote is startling enough.

In the last Presidential election voter national turnout was only about 54%. If 96% of women voted for one candidate & 68% of men voted for the other candidate that would be seen as an indication of massive gender divide in US society. Would you simply dismiss that reality because 45% of the population didn't vote?

Deeply? See that's where we disagree, because the numbers as @Spurgy 777 and others argued (as myself included) don't give you the ability to say without a shadow of a doubt race was a key factor. I'd argue some of the things Jones stood for, many would not want that in a representative, such as pro-abortion. Or other ideologies that seem to butt head with religion. Simply saying that Race was a key factor (though you claim you're not) is ignoring other key reasons voters decided the way they did.

I've not ignored anything, I've simply said sure, you can talk about the numbers, but the moment you try to push them onto a larger population especially one that didn't vote, then you have assumed certainty for a vast randomized group. As for the hypothetical you pose, if that was how 54% voted, then you would have a larger sample size to dictate that from. 38% is not a majority again so it's hard again, to do what you are trying to do, this is how stats works. As a person that does a ton of math for a living and stats included, this isn't how you explain a population.

If 54% were to vote that would be a majority of the people, however 68% of men voting wouldn't be a majority of the entire voter population since it would only come out to 36%. Women would be 51% (using the 96% hypothetical) so they would essentially be a majority say, however, that too would be looked at with some scrutiny because it could be said to show a division in women voters.

Yet these are hypothetical numbers because 51%+36% doesn't equal 54% so you'd have to give another baseline percentage like the original stats you posted for example.

I've essentially repeated the same thing to you many more of a number than I ever wanted, so thank you for the conversation and by all means continue, I will not.

 

[TexRex]

Ol' Roy regularly dresses like a toddler, with his little hat and his little vest and his little boots, but he sure is being a baby about this .

 

[DK]

What happened to "God's will"?

 

[Jezza819]

What happened to "God's will"?

Ole' Roy didn't like the answer God gave to him. He's good at ignoring things like that, court orders, etc.

 

[ryzno]

I swear I'm getting tired of hearing the left say this election is the starting trend for2018 elections.
The only reason a Republican isn't in office is cause he's an alleged perv.

No more, no less.
I'll buy anyone Premium on a bet, a Republican will be voted back in next election.

The whole debate over this is crap. They found someone in the woodworks to screw a nominee.

 

[TexRex]

I swear I'm getting tired of hearing the left say this election is the starting trend for 2018 elections.

I swear I'm getting tired of sore losers blaming a flawed system for their defeat. Ol' Roy's been laying the groundwork for a while now, like a murder suspect crapping his pants and putting them on his head before arraignment with hopes of an insanity plea being accepted, or something else it's reminded me of:

 

[ryzno]

I swear I'm getting tired of sore losers blaming a flawed system for their defeat. Ol' Roy's been laying the groundwork for a while now, like a murder suspect crapping his pants and putting them on his head before arraignment with hopes of an insanity plea being accepted, or something else it's reminded me of:

I don't know if I misunderstand you or you misunderstood me... Or, you're mocking me...

I wouldn't have voted for him if I could and he's boo whoing about the results like (R) Mary Norwood here in Atlanta.
They lost, accept it.

I DO believe a Republican will win next election as long as they don't have the baggage Moore has.
Republican voters refused to vote for him.

 

[TexRex]

I don't know if I misunderstand you or you misunderstood me... Or, you're mocking me...

None of the above...well...I don't know that I've heard of democrats talking about this particular defeat as a turning of the tides--perhaps it's delusional optimism if they are.

Do I think accusations led to old Roy's defeat? Absolutely! Do I think those accusations are true? Absolutely! I've gotten a child-rapey vibe from old Roy since well before those accusations were made, though if I'm honest, I'm surprised they've come from women rather than men--his stance on homosexuality reeks of self-hate. But I digress.

Remove the accusations and you're still left with a guy who's said some incredibly hateful, stupid things and has demonstrated that he's incapable of conducting himself appropriately in a position of power. It's these words and actions that have led to him being 🤬-canned on more than one occasion.

I don't think over-arching political views in Alabama have changed significantly, but I dare say that even in Alabama, he was too "Alabama" (his words).

 

[TenEightyOne]

...even in Alabama, he was too "Alabama" (his words).

Imagine being too Alabama for Alabama... that's quite something.

 

[Jezza819]

I DO believe a Republican will win next election as long as they don't have the baggage Moore has.
Republican voters refused to vote for him.

There's no doubt that a Republican will win the next time around. This was definitely a one off but oh what a sweet one off it was. The sad thing is that Moore still got 600k+ votes. Again take the alleged chasing underage women thing out of it and that still leaves you with someone that said this country was great even during slavery, is the poster boy for homophobia in this state, brandished a firearm on stage at a campaign rally, and was REMOVED from office TWICE. Now to me just the removal from office should have been enough to bury him away for good but not in good ol' Bama.

For the last several years all you have to do in this state to get elected to a statewide or Congressional level position is be a Republican, say you love guns, say you are anti-abortion, be against gay marriage, and you're in. That's providing you've slung enough mud at your other fellow Republicans and survived the primary because that's when the election is really decided. The November election is just a formality.

You can't shame this state enough, you can't embarrass them in any way, they're all numb to it by now. It's like a badge of honor now. Dead last in almost everything except obesity rates but that doesn't matter as long as we have Republicans in office and the college football teams win.

So yes you are correct the next time around the Republicans will have learned their lesson and they will make sure that this terrible wrong is righted. But at least waking up the morning of December 13th the air just smelled sweeter around here. We have to enjoy it while we can because once November 2020 rolls around it will be back to the gas masks.