Can The Democrats Win Back The Senate Next Year?

Dan McCarthy, a right-wing Arizona Republican skincare company executive who is challenging Martha McSally for her Senate seat next year, told a Phoenix radio audience this week that "the Washington DC establishment, Mitch McConnell... the swamp creatures of Washington, DC-- they've given us two choices, McSally or Kelly. I'm a conservative outsider. I've been looking at this for a little while and I said, 'I'm not so sure if that's acceptable to me; I'd don't know if the status quo's OK... What I'm hearing is-- from a lot of people-- very smart people, by the way-- that losing another Senate seat is unacceptable... I think the voters deserve an actual choice, not an appointment. People like the idea of a conservative outsider... I don't think Arizona will allow DC money to buy votes."

McConnell and the DSCC are counting on holding the Arizona seat, one of the two top Democratic Party targets for the 2020 Senate elections. If Bernie and/or Elizabeth Warren wins in 2020 a hostile McConnell-lead Senate will be pretty deadly for all their plans. 2018's anti-Red wave didn't extend into the Senate races last year and the Democrats ate shit, losing seats where very right-wing Democrats had been banking on the accumulation of Republican-lite voting records to save them. It didn't work. There are 53 Republicans and 47 Democrats (including 2 independents) in the Senate today. 4 of the worst Senate Democrats-- Claire McCaskill (MO), Heidi Heitkamp (ND), Bill Nelson (FL) and Joe Donnelly (IN), perfect DSCC lesser-of-two evils candidates-- lost seats that the Democrats couldn't afford to lose, even while 3 of them outspent their Republican opponents. The only Republican incumbent the Democrats managed to oust was Dean Heller (NV), who Trump had been spatting with and who was not embraced by Trumpist voters. The Democrats managed to slip another worthless conservative, Jackie Rosen, into the seat-- a complete waste. (She already sports a solid "F" from ProgressivePunch and currently is ranked as the 4th worst Democrat in the House.

Even worse than Rosen, was the other winner (of Jeff Flake's open seat) from 2018. Kyrsten Sinema was previously the worst Democrat in the House. She has already surpassed Joe Manchin (54.01) and Doug Jones (46.88) as the Senate's worst Democrat (43.40). Congratulations to Little Chucky Schmucky, who hand-picked her. For 2020 Senator Schmucky, has picked an "ex"-Republican, Mark Kelly, for the Arizona special election to fill McCain's seat (temporarily filled by appointee Martha McSally).

If Elizabeth Warren or another Democrat is vice president, the Democrats will have to win a net of 3 seats to wrest the leadership away from McConnell. That means they have to reelect Doug Jones in Alabama (R+14) and win 3 of these seats or 4 if they lose in Alabama:

• Alaska (R+9)- Dan Sullivan
• Arizona (R+5)- Martha McSally
• Colorado (D+1)- Cory Gardner
• Georgia (R+5)- David Perdue
• Iowa (R+3)- Joni Ernst
• Kansas (R+13)- (Open)
• Kentucky (R+15)- McConnell
• Maine (D+3)- Susan Collins
• North Carolina (R+3)- Thom Tillis
• Tennessee (R+14)- (open)
• Texas (R+8)- John Cornyn

Even with Sen Schmucky making all the (wrong) calls, do the Democrats have a shot at winning next year? They do-- a chance. I want to piece together 3 posts from Thursday in The Hill about this. The first was by Jordain Carney: GOP frets over nightmare scenario for Senate primaries. It actually knits the other two-- Kansas Republican suggests Kobach candidacy threatens Senate GOP majority and Alabama senator says Trump opposed to Sessions Senate bid-- together. "In Alabama and Kansas, two deep-red states that should be safe GOP seats," wrote Carney, "the party is facing bids from conservatives Roy Moore and Kris Kobach, respectively, who are viewed as unelectable in a general election and have a history of stealing the national spotlight. Republicans say they feel good about their chances to hold onto the chamber in 2020-- when they will be playing defense in mostly red territory-- but bloody fights in those two states could help widen Democrats’ path back to the majority."

A GOP operative watching the Senate races who is “cautiously optimistic” about Republicans keeping the majority, warned that Republicans can’t “afford to play games” by potentially nominating a candidate with baggage that compromises their ability to win in November.

“We don’t need to be having any problems, it’s not a state we can stumble in. The map for the majority is OK, but if you have to start diverting resources to Kansas it complicates things,” the operative said, adding that Alabama is also viewed as a “must-win state.”

National groups have wasted little time staking out opposition to Moore and Kobach. The National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) and the Senate Leadership Fund (SLF), which is aligned with Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), blasted both of their campaign announcements. Neither group has ruled out intervening in the primaries if either emerges as a viable contender for the party’s nomination.

A second Republican strategist added that the message against the candidates is that the two states should be easy Republican wins that will help the party keep control of the chamber-- and “people like Kris Kobach and Roy Moore threaten that.”

“They both have a record of losses that doesn’t sit well with Republican voters,” the strategist added, characterizing the two candidates as an “unnecessary headache” and a “distraction” in the larger battle for the Senate.

It’s not the first time conservative challengers have created early frustrations for Republicans.

During the 2012 cycle, then-Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) was viewed as likely to lose her race until GOP nominee Todd Akin, who defeated more-mainstream picks during the primary, said that “if it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.”

In the same election cycle, conservative challenger Richard Mourdock defeated longtime Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN) during the primary, only to lose against Democratic nominee Joe Donnelly.

But the party has become more adept at beating back primary candidates they either view as anthema to general election voters or likely to spark a fierce intraparty fight.

National Republicans spent heavily in 2018 to successfully defeat former coal CEO Don Blankenship during the West Virginia Republican Senate primary. And, causing a sigh of relief for party leadership, Rep. Mark Walker (R-NC) passed on challenging Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) for the party’s nomination next year.

This cycle they are defending almost two dozen seats, compared to 12 that Democrats are trying to hold onto. But most of the GOP seats are in deeply red states, meaning the battleground for the Senate will likely be limited to a handful of seats like Maine, Colorado and Arizona.

The dynamic has left Republicans feeling optimistic about their ability to hold onto the Senate, where Democrats would need to win at least three seats and the White House in order to have a vice president break ties in their favor in an evenly-divided chamber, and four seats to win an outright majority.

“The map’s going to be fairly large, our members are going to have to work hard to win reelection and we think that they’re well positioned to do that,” said Sen. John Thune (SD), the No. 2 Senate Republican.

Republicans also argue that Democrats have struggled to snag big-name recruits in several Senate races, including Georgia and Montana, that would allow them to expand the map of top-tier races beyond the handful of early toss-up states.

How much of a threat Moore and Kobach will be during the 2020 cycle, and if they can help expand Democrats’ path to retaking the Senate, remains to be seen.

Lacking Moore’s personal baggage, Kobach could be the bigger headache for Republicans. The former Kansas secretary of state lost last year’s gubernatorial election by 5 percentage points. Before that he was considered for a Cabinet post, headed up Trump’s panel investigating alleged voter fraud and was briefly considered for an administration job overseeing immigration policy.

“It seems to me that if you have just lost a statewide race that the chances of you winning, running again for another statewide race would be very difficult,” said Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS), who Kobach is trying to succeed. “Kris Kobach, once he makes up his mind, makes up his mind.”

McConnell sidestepped weighing in on the Kansas Senate race except to plug his preference that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo get in the race.

“I’m not sure the president agrees with this, that I’d love to see the secretary of State run for the Senate in Kansas. But the filing deadline is not until next June,” McConnell said.

Moore won the party’s primary in 2017, including defeating Sen. Luther Strange (R-AL), only to narrowly lose to now-Sen. Doug Jones (D-AL) by less than 2 points after facing several allegations of sexual misconduct with teenage girls when he was in his 30s. Moore, 72, denied the allegations, but Republicans are hopeful the damage will keep him in a distant third place during the 2020 race.

McConnell, asked about Moore during a weekly press conference, predicted that Alabamians have “seen quite enough of Roy Moore.”

Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) told The Hill that he had discussed the seat and various candidates with Trump.

“He’s damaged,” Shelby said, about Moore. “He wouldn’t be good for Alabama.” 

Trump, almost never a team player, could hurt the Republicans in Alabama because their surest path to victory would be to nominate Jeff Sessions. Trump is against it. On top of that, he is very much a Kobach fan since, like him, Kobach is an extreme xenophobe and racist. And then there's the albatross problem. Trump is polling badly in Iowa (-12), Maine (-11), Colorado (-12), Arizona (-7), North Carolina (-3) and not as well as he should be in Texas (+4), Kansas (+4), Georgia (0) and Alaska (+4).


UPDATE: The Dems Want To Win? You Sure?

Iowa looks like a very prime target to me, but the DSCC seems to have given up before they started Although Tom Harkin (former Senator), Tom Vilsack (former Governor and Cabinet Member), Chet Culver (former Governor and son of a Senator), Bruce Braley (former Congressman and Senate candidate) and Dave Loebsack (7-term Congressman) all are alive enough to run for the Joni Ernst seat next year. But the DSCC has already endorsed Theresa Greenfield, who was disqualified in her House campaign last year for forging signature petitions, and has no relevant experience or accomplishments whatsoever. This is likely to be a wipeout that will far surpass the Patty Judge wipeout-- and in a state where Trump is completely underwater and where Ernst is a 100% enabler.

Who’s The Creepiest Old Man In The Senate?

After Republican child molester Roy Moore announced he would be running for the Alabama Senate seat again, appointed Senator Martha McSally of Arizona was quoted by Politico’s Burgess Everett saying “Give me a break! This place has enough creepy old men!” Was she wasn’t referring to Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and some of the other creepy old men in the Senate? No doubt— but this time the whole DC wing of the GOP is united against Roy Moore, the Alabama Republican ho has already proven he can win Republican primaries in his state— and not general elections. And speaking of McTurtle… he’s flipping out. If the Democrats can hold onto the Alabama seat, there’s a good chance McConnell won’t be majority leader in 2021— or ever again.

Alabama has a statewide PVI of R+14, one of the worst in the country. In 2016, Señor Trumpanzee beat Hillary there 1,318,255 (62.1%) to 729,547 (34.4%). And yet when Trumpanzee named Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions Attorney General, the voters of Alabama replaced him with Democrat Doug Jones instead of Moore— 673,896 (50.0%) to 651,972 (48.350. Trump campaigned vigorously for Moore but many Alabama voters saw it as one sex deviant supporting another sex deviant and just stayed away from the polls. The institutional Republican Party immediately pledged to do everything it could do to derail Moore’s primary bid this time. One possibility would be to dig up Jeff Sessions to run for his old seat again, although he has indicated he’s finished with politics after his acrimonious months as part of the Trump regime.

"There will be a lot of efforts made to ensure that we have a nominee other than him and one who can win in November,” said Senate Majority Whip John Thune (R-S.D.). “He’s already proven he can’t.”

Added Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, “We’ll be opposing Roy Moore vigorously."

A Moore candidacy could harm Republicans’ national brand if he catches fire again, and incumbents running in purple states— like Gardner and McSally— are loath to find themselves tied to him. And facing a tougher 2020 map with several battleground seats in play, Republicans are eager to beat Jones and cushion their majority.

If Republicans do defeat Jones, that would require Democrats to pick up a minimum of four seats elsewhere to take the Senate. Alabama should be an easy pickup for Republicans, given the state’s bright red hue and Trump’s popularity, which is why Moore’s new run is causing such alarm in the GOP.

“You think it’s been divisive before? It gets really divisive on the other side,” Jones said of Moore’s Senate bid. Moore defeated former Sen. Luther Strange (R-AL) in 2017 despite significant support from the party establishment.

…Rep. Bradley Byrne (R-AL) and former Auburn Coach Tommy Tuberville are already in the race, and Rep. Gary Palmer (R-AL) is considering it. But that crowded field could easily play to Moore’s advantage given his past popularity with the state’s most conservative voters. What's more, Moore also could conceivably win a general election with Trump atop the ticket, a nightmare for the Senate GOP that would then have to deal with a bomb-thrower in the caucus.

The president and his son, Donald Trump Jr., have already expressed their dissatisfaction with Moore’s run. Trump tweeted last month that Moore “cannot win,” and Trump Jr. tweeted Thursday that “Roy Moore is going against my father and he’s doing a disservice to all conservatives across the country in the process.”

“The people of Alabama rejected Roy Moore just a few months ago. And I don’t see that anything has changed,” said Sen. Todd Young (R-IN), chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee.

Yet Moore has been unbowed by that criticism, seeking to run once against as an outsider against the establishment. Republicans largely pulled their support from his bid after the sexual misconduct allegations were reported by the Washington Post, leaving Moore adrift in a race that should have been an easy GOP hold.

On Thursday, Moore called out Young for opposing his candidacy and slammed both the NRSC and the Senate Leadership Fund, an outside group that spent heavily against Moore in 2017. He accused the NRSC of running a “smear campaign” and bashed Shelby for doubting his viability.

“Why such a hatred and opposition to somebody running? Why does mere mention of my name cause people just to get up in arms in Washington, D.C.?" Moore said at a news conference Thursday.

That combative stance is leading some Republicans to suggest Trump may have to do more, because otherwise “we probably lose the seat,” said Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX).

“I’m concerned,” Cornyn said. “If President Trump came out forcefully against him … that would certainly make it more likely that somebody else will get nominated.”

Yet Republicans are also wary of doing anything that could repeat the debacle of 2017, when support from Senate Republicans seemed to weigh on Strange and give Moore an opening in the primary. The Senate Leadership Fund is not yet vowing to spend in the race, waiting to see if his candidacy will fall apart on its own, and senators said they need to have a lighter touch this time around to stop Moore from succeed.

“We will do everything we can to stop him. But we need to be careful about that,” said one Republican senator. “We have to be more elegant.”

Not an NRSC strong suit. Moore is likely to run against the establishment. McConnell is an easy enemy even inside the GOP, where he’s hated everywhere. Moore: "I think there was so much opposition because they don't want the truth in Washington. I think they want to continue the status quo." That’s a message that resonates among Alabama Republicans, who could easily be offended by DC politicians telling them who their nominee will be.

Can The Democrats Win Back The Senate? Let's Start With Maine And Alabama

Before we get into the seat a Democrat can capture, we have to realize that there's a super-vulnerable red seat, held by a Democrat who is up for reelection. The state's PVI is R+14 and Trump won that state 62-34%. Their House has 77 Republicans and 28 Democrats and their state Senate has 27 Republicans and just 8 Democrats. The Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State, Attorney General, Auditor, Treasurer and Agricultural Commissioner-- all the state officers-- are Republicans. There are 6 very white, very Republican congressional seats-- and one giant largely rural black-belt seat with tentacles that incongruously reach out to encompass black neighborhoods in Birmingham, Tuscaloosa and Montgomery. Yep... welcome to Alabama. But they have, almost accidentally, one Democrat in an open U.S. Senate seat, Doug Jones.

Jones won the seat because Trump picked Senator Jeff Sessions to be his Attorney General. The Republicans nominated a child molester to replace Sessions and Jones managed to beat him-- 673,896 votes (50.0%) to 651,972 votes (48.3%) for the child molester. The child molester was heavily supported by pro-molestation politicians Donald Trump and Mike Pence. This year the molester wants to run again-- and many Alabama Republicans are excited at the prospect. Trump tweeted he wouldn't support him and the molester replied that Alabama can select its own senators and that Trump should mind his business. Trump-- really McConnell-- wants Congressman Bradley Byrne to run against Jones. The most recent Mason-Dixon polling shows Moore (the molester) with the highest name recognition of any of the potential GOP candidates. It also shows Moore beating Byrne 27-13%. Moore is ahead of the Republican field among men, women, people under 50 and people over 50.

Jones doesn't have a bad job approval (45-44%) but when asked if they would reelect him, just 40% say yes; 50% say no. So far I haven't seen any head-to-head re-matchups between Jones and Mr. Molester. Conventional wisdom says that Moore would have to win the primary for Jones to have a real shot at reelection.

The dozen other Democratic seats look solid. The best shots the Democrats have for seat flips are Colorado, Maine, Iowa, North Carolina and Georgia. None of these will be easy and a lot will rest on Schumer not sticking his nose into the races and picking terrible candidates who make the Democratic base want to stay home and puke, as is his wont.

Now, let's talk about Maine. Both Sabato and Cook rate it "lean Republican," meaning they think Susan Collins is vulnerable but that she will probably win. The latest polling from Critical Insights is less sure Collins is even that safe.

A little context. Last year 50% of Maine voters disapproved of Trump and just 41% approved. It's much worse now-- 58% disapproval and 34% approval. Mainers approve of their two members of Congress, Chellie Pingree and Jared Golden. And the new Governor, Janet Mills gets a 47%/31% approval/disapproval. Things are less sanguine for Collins. Her disapproval rating has been growing since 2017, when it was 28%. It went to 36% in 2018 and now stands at 42%, about the same as the voters who approve of her (41%). This is bad news, especially compared to Angus King, Maine's other senator, whose job approval is 57%, with just 22% disapproving.

Collins is in a bad Trump Trap. Republicans think she isn't supportive enough. Indpendents and Democrats think she's too supine and doesn't stand up to him enough. 31% of Democrats give her a good job approval, while just 46% of Republicans do. Her vote in favor of confirming Kavanaugh killed her with Dems and independents and didn't help enough with Republicans. She hasn't said whether or not she will run-- nor have Paul LePage and Bruce Poliquin, two sure losers.

So who will the Democrats run? Mentioned most frequently are House speaker Sara Gideon, former House speaker Hannah Pingree, 2018 Senate candidate Zak Ringelstein, state Senator Shenna Bellows, former Lewistown Mayor James Howaniec, former Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards and, worst of all, EMILY'S List executive and frequent losing candidate Emily Cain, the candidate Collins could beat without breaking a sweat. She's probably Schumer's top choice.

A little aside: Critical Insights also asked Mainers how they feel about the Green New Deal:

• Strongly support- 18%
• Somewhat support- 25%
• Not sure- 22%
• Somewhat oppose 13%
• Strongly oppose 22%

We May Get Roy Moore To Kick Around Again

Next year, conservative Democrat, Senator Doug Jones (AL) is up for reelection. He is considered the most vulnerable incumbent from either party-- especially if the Republican national and Alabama establishments are able to shoe-horn their favorite candidate, Congressman Bradley Byrne, into the nomination. Over a dozen other Republicans are also considering running for the nomination-- although, significantly, Jeff Sessions is not one of them. The one who is and who could probably guarantee that Jones keeps the seat is far right crackpot and child molester Roy Moore.

It';s being widely reported that Moore wants to run again. Yesterday Alex Donuzinskis reported for Reuters is "seriously considering" running again. Jones must be praying with all his might that Moore, whose 2017 campaign "was marred by allegations he sexually assaulted or pursued teenage girls while in his 30s," does just that.

In an interview on the Christian program “Focal Point” on American Family Radio, host Bryan Fischer asked Moore about the 2020 race for the Senate in Alabama. “Tell me what you’re thinking about throwing your hat back into the ring,” Fischer said.

“I’m seriously considering it, I think that it (the 2017 Senate race) was stolen,” Moore responded, citing what he described as misinformation campaigns against him.

Senator Doug Jones, a former federal prosecutor, defeated Moore by a narrow margin in a special election in December 2017 to fill the seat vacated by Republican Jeff Sessions when he became U.S. attorney general. Jones was the first Democrat in a quarter-century to be elected to the U.S. Senate in conservative-leaning Alabama.

If Moore, a 72-year-old former chief judge in Alabama known for staunchly conservative views, does decide to run for the Senate in 2020 and secures the Republican nomination, he could find himself facing Jones again. The term that Jones was elected to fill expires at the end of 2020.

Moore’s 2017 campaign to fill Sessions’ seat was beset by allegations from women who told the Washington Post that he had sexually assaulted or pursued them while he was in his 30s and they were teenagers. Moore denied the misconduct allegations.

Alabama voters, who had given Trump a massive 1,318,255 (62.08%) to 729,547 (34.36%) win over Hillary in 2016, apparently didn't believe Moore, electing Jones 673,896 (50.0%) to 651,972 (48.3%). That was the first time since 1986 that Alabamans elected a Democrat to the Senate, in that case, Richard Shelby who, after being reelected in 1992, switched to the GOP two years later.

ProgressivePunch has rated Jones' voting record an "F," but even with his reelection coming right up in a deeply red state, his record this year is better than two other even further right Senate Dems, neither of whom will be facing the voters until 2022:

• Doug Jones (AL)- 41.67%
• Joe Manchin (WV)- 38.46%
• Kyrsten Sinema (AZ)- 38.46%

In Election Cycles, Exposing Lies Matters... Or Does It?

A couple of nights ago, Rachel Maddow opened her show with a history lesson-- how Watergate Republicans in Congress slit their own throats by defending Nixon's cascade of lies. She starts with a little-known Indiana Republican congressman, David Dennis, elected in 1968 in what is now deep red IN-06 (represented today by Luke Messer, about to be replaced by Mike Pence's brother Greg who won the seat last month, 63.8% to 32.9%). Dennis served on the House Judiciary Committee, where he was a ferocious defender of Nixon-- until the "smocking gun" tape-- and was defeated in 1974 by Democrat Phil Sharp (54.4% to 45.6%).

Maddow asked, in reference to Dennis, "Nixon's guy on the Judiciary Committee," "What happens to you when you've been shouting, 'Nothing's here,' 'Nothing's here,' 'Nothing's here,' and then all of a sudden you, and everybody, find out for sure, yeah, there's something there?"

Nixon resigned in August and a couple months later: the midterms. "33 of the 38 members on the Judiciary Committee ran for reelection. All became highly visible as we all know, during the summer, during the time that the Committee's hearing were televised over the impeachment of the president. Of the 33 who ran again, 6 were considered in tight races. 5 of those 6 are Republicans. Wiley Mayne was beaten in Iowa's 6th district; Charles Sandman, one of Nixon's most vocal supporters, lost in New Jersey's second district; Joseph Maraziti, another Republican from New Jersey and another strong Nixon partisan, was easily defeated; in Indiana, David Dennis, who also opposed impeachment in the original voting, lost to Philip Sharp..."

Rachel: "David Dennis' seat in Indiana was one of 48 seats Republicans lost the year that Nixon resigned from office... the biggest midterm loss for Republicans in modern political times. Since 1974, Republicans haven't fallen anywhere near that level of defeat. Until now. This year they lost 40 seats, in the House, to the Democrats. It was the biggest midterm loss Republicans have seen since that extraordinary election in 1974 that happened right after Nixon had to step down."

In the House, Chris Dodd (of Dodd-Frank) and Henry Waxman (of ObamaCare) were first elected that year. So were future U.S. senators Tom Harkin (IA), Paul Tsongas (MA), Max Baucus (MT) and Republican Jim Jeffords (VT) who switched to the Democrats, taking control of the Senate with him and then decided to retire, making room for a new senator, Bernie Sanders. Consequences.

Last week, Melissa Healy, writing for the L.A. Times and flying in the face of Maddow's show opener, reported that Voters have high tolerance for politicians who lie, even those caught doing it. Of course, she had Trump in mind, not Nixon. The Republicans defending Trump's lies today are the one who have to worry about what consequences are about to befall them. Dozens have already lost their seats (and their political careers). With Trump likely on the ballot in 2020, how many more will follow? It could be as many as 50, but Healy implies they might not have so much to worry about. "New research," she reported, "offers fresh insights into the stubborn role of ideology in maintaining support for those who peddle falsehoods, and the limited power of fact-checking to change voters’ minds. Even in the face of immediate and authoritative corrections, we humans don’t budge easily, or for long, from established opinions about politics, politicians and the coverage they receive." In other words-- even faced with facts, Republicans might easily forgive Trump (and his defenders) for all the lies.

She warned that "[S]ome of us-- in particular, those who endorse conservative positions-- are quicker to believe assertions that warn of grim consequences or of sinister forces at work. The findings of three new studies suggest that fact-checkers had better be persistent, and that their expectations of changing people’s minds had better be modest."

Arguably, the need for fact-checking has never been greater. The Washington Post’s “Fact Checker,” which maintains a running tally of President Trump’s false statements, has counted 6,420 false or misleading statements made by the president through Oct. 30, including more than 4,400 this year. A Fact Checker poll released this week has found that more than 6 in 10 Americans believe fact-checkers when they conclude that Trump has made a false claim-- meaning that more than one-third of them do not.

Is credulity, and a vague mistrust of fact-checkers, unique to Americans, or is it a broader attribute of humans? It may be a bit of both.

In a study published Tuesday and conducted with a sample of 370 Australians, researchers found that the veracity of a political candidate’s claims does matter to voters-- sometimes. When Australian subjects were shown an array of politicians’ false statements corrected by fact-checking, they reduced their belief of those assertions. When they were shown fact-checked true statements, whether attributed to a politician on the right or one on the left, their belief in the assertions increased as well.

This fact-checking changed subjects’ views about which politicians they supported, but only slightly-- only when false statements outnumbered true statements by a ratio of 4-to-1. When false statements and true statements were attributed to a candidate in equal numbers-- four falsehoods in balance with four true statements-- Australian subjects didn’t change their opinions at all.

Study coauthor Adam J. Berinsky, a political scientist at MIT, said he considered those results a bit less depressing than what he found when he tried the same experiment on American subjects. When the authors presented fact-checked assertions from Donald Trump and former Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders to Americans, “the magnitude of the overall effect was minute,” even when false statements outweighed true ones by the same 4-1 ratio.

Those results, which are not yet published, suggest that, although both Americans and Australians are capable of distinguishing fact from fiction (with help from fact-checkers), they are loath to alter their overall view of their favored candidate accordingly.

“They seem to be saying, ‘He may be a liar, but he’s my liar,’” Berinsky said.

Also “slightly depressing,” he added, was the short shelf life of a fact check: A week after subjects in both countries saw politicians’ assertions corrected for truthfulness, they had forgotten virtually all of what they had learned.

But Berinsky said he took heart in Australians’ willingness to adjust their assessments of lying politicians even a little bit.

“I mainly study U.S. politics and am used to a world in which fact-checking doesn’t work very well, where people are really stuck in their lane and politicians are seemingly immune to any kind of facts,” he said. “It’s good to know there are countries in which this still can work.”

The findings echoed those of a report published last week in PLOS One, which demonstrated that the inclusion of fact-checking in an experimental news feed made subjects hungrier and more confident news consumers. It also made them more inclined to trust “mainstream media outlets.”

But there was a hitch: In addition to being very small, subjects’ shifts in attitude became evident only when their news feeds included an occasional “defense of journalism” article. Usually, these were opinion pieces that countered attacks on the profession.

“Without defense of journalism, fact checking had no effect on any of these outcomes,” Raymond J. Pingree, a professor of mass communications at Louisiana State University, and his coauthors concluded.

Self-identified Republicans in the study started out lower than Democrats in their trust of mainstream media, their confidence in their own ability to decide what is true in politics, and their intention to use a mainstream news portal in the future. But after a week of plying them with specialized news feeds, Pingree’s team found that people across the political spectrum responded well to the combination of fact checking and defense-of-journalism pieces.

If you’re starting to see a light at the end of the partisan tunnel, however, consider a third study published this week. It tested the idea that people are more inclined to believe unproven conspiracy theories when their party is out of power, a notion sometimes called the “conspiracy belief is for losers” hypothesis.

The study was led by UCLA anthropologist Daniel Fessler, who found that people whose political stances aligned them with American conservatism were far more likely than liberals to embrace falsehoods that warned of grim consequences.

Americans who hew to more progressive political stances were certainly credulous as well, the UCLA team found. But they were no more likely to believe a scary falsehood-- say, that a drunken airline passenger could pry open a plane’s door in midair-- than they were to buy into the far less terrifying myth that you can burn more calories by exercising on an empty stomach.

But were these inclinations real and enduring, or could they be explained by the fact that, when the experiment was run in October 2015 and September 2016, conservatives had been out of the White House for several years?

Fessler and Theodore Samore, a graduate student in UCLA’s anthropology department, repeated the experiment in 2016, after Donald Trump had won the presidential election, and in 2017, after Georgia Democrat Doug Jones beat Republican Roy Moore in a special election for a Senate seat. After Trump’s triumph, the researchers reasoned, conservatives should feel empowered and confident. After Jones’ victory, they presumed, liberals would likely feel hopeful once more.

But their original findings did not change: As they moved further right on the ideological spectrum, people were consistently more likely to believe frightening false claims, and found them more credible than emotionally neutral falsehoods. The results were published last week in PLOS One.

“It seems there’s just a fundamental difference in how credulous people are about hazards as a function of their orientation,” Fessler said. “How positively people feel about their party’s future doesn’t matter.”

That dynamic has worrisome implications: When believers of ominous warnings succeed at the polls, “they have the megaphone that power brings,” Fessler said. “And they use that-- whether cynically or genuinely I can’t tell-- to issue additional proclamations of danger.”

This, he said, has been Trump’s stock in trade-- foreign powers are taking advantage of the United States, dangerous hordes are storming the borders, and we need to build a wall to keep would-be invaders at bay.

“That cycle is very difficult to break,” Fessler said. What’s more, warning people who are inclined to believe that kind of narrative that they’re being lied to seems more likely to reinforce the conspiracy theory than to induce a change of heart.

“I do worry,” he said.

Which Party Hates Its Own Grassroots More?

McConnell salutes West Virginia grassroots Republican voters

Third party Super PACs spent $7,343,577 tearing apart Roy Moore in the Alabama Senate race. $6,552,448 of that came from Mitch McConnelll's Senate Leadership PAC. McConnell had so sullied Moore's reputation that when he won the primary against the establishment candidate, he couldn't win the general election. Despite Alabama's statewide PVI of R+14 and despite Trump having crushed Hillary in the state 1,318,255 (62.1%) to 729,547 (34.4%), Democrat Doug Jones still beat him 673,896 (50.0%) to 651,972 (48.3%)on December 12, 2017. Moore could not overcome all the negativity from fellow Republicans.

But it isn't just the corrupt Republican establishment waging this kind of warfare against its own Outside-the-Beltway grassroots. The Democrats do the exact something. The DCCC attacks on Laura Moser in Texas and Levi Tillemann in Colorado are examples of the same kind of ugliness. The DCCC would rather lose to a Republican than win with a progressive.

And now Alex Isenstadt reported in Politico over the weekend that Miss McConnell is up to his tricks again, this time in West Virginia. Watch:

The Republican establishment has launched an emergency intervention in the West Virginia Senate primary aimed at stopping recently imprisoned coal baron Don Blankenship from winning the party’s nomination.

Late last week, a newly formed super PAC generically dubbed the “Mountain Families PAC” began airing TV ads targeting Blankenship, who spent one year behind bars following a deadly 2010 explosion at his Upper Big Branch Mine. The national party isn’t promoting its role in the group, but its fingerprints are all over it.

The 30-second commercials, which the group is spending nearly $700,000 to air, accuse Blankenship’s company of contaminating drinking water by pumping “toxic coal slurry,” even as the multimillionaire installed a piping system that pumped clean water to his mansion.

“Isn’t there enough toxic sludge in Washington?” the narrator intones.

The assault comes amid rising fears from national Republicans that Blankenship is gaining traction ahead of the May 8 primary. The Republican hopeful has spent his own money to fund a $1.3 million TV ad blitz in which he portrays himself as the casualty of an Obama-era Justice Department bent on locking him up. He has far outspent his primary opponents, Rep. Evan Jenkins and state Attorney General Patrick Morrisey, whom he castigates as pawns of the GOP establishment.

Washington Republicans have spent weeks deliberating whether to go after Blankenship, who was released from prison in May after a one-year sentence. They’re worried that he would destroy the party’s chances of defeating Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin in November.

At the same time, they’ve been concerned that attacking him would allow Blankenship to portray himself in the race as the embattled adversary of powerful D.C. interests. The scenario is similar to the one that played out in last year’s Alabama Senate race, when the party spent millions of dollars in an unsuccessful effort to stop former state Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore from winning the GOP nomination.

The national party, perhaps worried about Alabama-style backlash, is not taking credit for the attack or for Mountain Families PAC. But the connections are conspicuous.

According to federal disclosures, the commercials were overseen by several firms that in the past have worked closely with Senate Leadership Fund, a super PAC aligned with Majority Leader Mitch McConnell that openly led the assault on Moore. They were produced by GOP ad-making firm McCarthy, Hennings, Whalen and were placed on TV by the media buyer Main Street Group, both of whom were paid thousands of dollars by Senate Leadership Fund during the 2016 election cycle.

Mountain Families PAC has also paid nearly $48,000 to Targeted Victory, a suburban Washington-based GOP consulting firm, for web ads targeting Blankenship. During the 2016 cycle, the firm received over $1.5 million from Senate Leadership Fund, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Representatives for Senate Leadership Fund did not respond to requests for comment, or to inquiries about whether it had a role in orchestrating the attack.

The ties between Mountain Families PAC and the national party do not end there. The super PAC lists an Arlington, Virginia, P.O. box that’s previously been used by a number of GOP entities. Among them: a fundraising account benefiting former Republican Sen. Luther Strange, who was the party favorite in last year’s Alabama contest.

The treasurer for Mountain Families PAC, Benjamin Ottenhoff, did not respond to a request for comment. Ottenhoff has previously worked for several party organizations, including the Republican National Committee and the National Republican Congressional Committee.

The ads represent the GOP’s most aggressive action yet against Blankenship. Earlier this month, President Donald Trump flew to West Virginia to hold an ostensibly official event to tout his tax reform package. He was flanked by Jenkins and Morrisey-- a clear attempt to promote their candidacies. Blankenship was not there. Blankenship did not respond to a request for comment. But last month he issued a statement saying he was well aware of the possibility that party leadership could target him.

“There has been an awful lot of talk lately about who the Washington, D.C., establishment and Mitch McConnell, in particular, are supporting in West Virginia’s U.S. Senate race. Let me be clear, I don't care who they are supporting,” he said. “I know that it is not me, because we recognize that those defending the swamp do not want Republican senators who want to drain the swamp.”

In a follow up yesterday evening, Isenstadt reported on Blankenship's response to the news of McConnell's full frontal attack on his campaign. He's demanding that McConnell "stop interfering." Many Democratic candidates could use the same terminology to describe Chuck Schumer, Steny Hoyer, Ben Ray Lujan, Nancy Pelosi and Joe Crowley: "McConnell should not be in the U.S. Senate, let alone be the Republican Majority Leader. He is a Swamp captain. The Russians and McConnell should both stop interfering with elections outside their jurisdictions."

I Wonder If There Are Still Any Gays And Lesbians Who Support Trump

This week Roy Moore, who still refuses to concede defeat in the Alabama Senate race, attacked Doug Jones' gay son, Carson for... being gay. (Moore's own son is a serial felon who has been repeatedly arrested for a variety of crimes.) Carson Jones is a zookeeper in Denver who specializes in taking care of elephants. Trump's detestable sons shoot elephants for fun. And Trump's Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, and vice president, Mike Pence, where named by the advocate this week as two of the three worst homophobes of 2017.

And yet... among all the other blatant and absurd lies Trump told on the campaign trail in 2016 was that he would be a friend to the LGBT community. He's been anything but a friend... except in the case of gay billionaires and gay Wall Street executives. This week Peter Montgomery examined the impact of Trump's first in the Oval Office on the gay community for Right Wing Watch.

As a presidential candidate, Donald Trump thrilled conservative gay leaders. He promised to “do everything in my power to protect LGBTQ citizens” and described himself as “fine” with marriage equality, which he said had been “settled” by the U.S. Supreme Court. Gay Republicans, who have had little experience with candidates expressing anything other than hostility, lost all sense of perspective. Chris Barron, a co-founder of GOProud, pronounced Trump “a better friend to the LGBT community than Hillary Clinton could ever be.” Breitbartista Milo Yiannapoulos went even further, declaring, “Donald Trump is the most pro-gay candidate in American electoral history.” Both statements were obviously and wildly untrue, as Trump’s damaging first year in office has made clear. As Miranda’s recent post noted, this was the year that the Religious Right moved into the White House. And the consequences for LGBTQ people have been predictably awful.

It is true that Trump once held up a rainbow flag someone handed him at a rally. But more often he was on stage at Religious Right events waving his Bible and pledging to make Christian conservatives more powerful while giving them the Supreme Court of their dreams. There was no way that Trump could keep his promises to the Religious Right-- which delivered an overwhelming majority of white evangelical voters to Trump-- without sacrificing the rights and well-being of LGBTQ Americans.

Indeed, last December, anti-LGBTQ extremist Scott Lively celebrated the election of Trump, who he said wisely concealed his anti-equality agenda as a candidate. Lively predicted that after Trump named new Supreme Court justices, “Kennedy and his homosexualist fellow travelers will presumably never again be able to repeat their past acts of violence to the Constitution and its Biblical foundations.”

Many LGBTQ people have been or will be harmed by broad-based Trump-GOP policies, like the tax bill and its assault on the Affordable Care Act, that also affect millions of non-LGBTQ Americans. But LGBTQ Americans are also facing very focused attacks from the Trump administration. That’s why NBC called Trump’s first 100 days “fear-inducing” for LGBTQ Americans. And by mid-year, German Lopez at Vox was calling Trump’s campaign promises to the LGBTQ community “total bullshit” and Luke Darby at GQ was calling the administration “a disaster for LGBT Americans.” The Human Rights Campaign’s Sarah McBride went even further, writing in Cosmopolitan that the Trump administration has “revealed itself to be the ugliest, most explicitly anti-LGBTQ presidency in U.S. history.” Journalist Michelangelo Signorile seconded that emotion in September.

Here are some of the low points:

Anti-Equality Judges

Trump’s tepid support for marriage equality-- the Supreme Court “settled” the issue and he was “fine” with it-- was always in conflict with his pledge to name Supreme Court justices from a list pre-approved by two right-wing organizations, the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation. The Federalist Society is committed to bringing about right-wing ideological domination in the federal judiciary. And the Heritage Foundation is explicitly committed to waging a multi-faceted campaign to reverse the Supreme Court’s marriage equality ruling. They defiantly insist that the Supreme Court’s ruling-- which they denounce as illegitimate—settled nothing.

It’s worth noting that months before Trump’s “fine” comment, he sang a different tune when speaking with the Christian Broadcasting Network. Speaking to that audience, he called the marriage equality ruling “shocking” and said he had been “very much in favor of letting the states decide” whether to let gay people get married. He assured CBN’s David Brody that conservative evangelicals “can trust me on traditional marriage.”

Trump had pledged to fill the Supreme Court seat left vacant for more than a year by Antonin Scalia’s death-- and Republican senators’ unconscionable refusal to even consider President Barack Obama’s nominee-- with a judge in the mold of the intensely anti-gay Scalia. The Religious Right was thrilled with the nomination of Neil Gorsuch, who showed his stripes with an ideologically strident but legally and logically flawed dissent in a case involving the rights of gay parents. Shannon Minter, a prominent LGBTQ legal advocate, accused Gorsuch of “deliberately trying to muddy the waters” and “trying to provide a road map for hostile state courts” to treat same-sex couples differently from other married couples.

Among Trump’s other awful nominees for lifetime jobs on the federal bench: Matthew Kacsmaryk, deputy general counsel at First Liberty Institute, who opposes anti-discrimination protections for LGBTQ people; Damien Schiff, who slammed an anti-bullying program for promoting the “homosexual lifestyle”; and Jeff Mateer, who called transgender children part of “Satan’s plan.” Mateer’s nomination was drawn after it faced intense criticism.

In an exposé of the anti-equality Alliance Defending Freedom, journalist Sarah Posner noted that Trump’s solicitor general, Noel Francisco, is an ADF-allied attorney, and that at least four of Trump’s judicial nominees have ADF ties.

Stripping protections from LGBTQ students, parents and families

One of the first official actions by the Trump administration was the rescinding of an Obama administration letter that had urged public schools to respect the right of transgender students to use bathrooms and locker rooms appropriate to their gender identity. Then-press secretary Sean Spicer said Trump saw this is a “states’ rights issue.”

Education Secretary Betsy DeVos said in May at a House Appropriations subcommittee hearing that states should be free to funnel tax dollars to private schools that discriminate against LGBTQ students and families.

Ban on Transgender Servicemembers

Trump announced via Twitter that he would ban transgender people from serving in the armed forces “in any capacity,” a policy adopted at the urging of Religious Right leaders like Tony Perkins and over the objections of military leaders. The policy change, while yet to be fully implemented, threatens to upend the lives and careers of thousands of trans people now serving honorably in the military.

Defending Anti-Gay Discrimination

The Department of Justice reversed itself and staked out a legal position in opposition to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, telling a federal appeals court that the ban on sex discrimination in the 1964 Civil Rights Act does not apply to discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Reinforcing the Religious Right’s Weaponization of Religious Liberty

Religious Right leaders have made a major strategic push to redefine religious liberty as a weapon against laws that protect LGBTQ people from discrimination. Trump brought anti-gay Religious Right leaders to the White House to celebrate his signing of an executive order on religious liberty; while it did not go as far as conservative evangelicals had hoped, the order left it in Jeff Sessions’ hands to develop the policy. When it comes to protecting civil rights, you really don’t want to be in Jeff Sessions’ hands. Sessions’ guidance on religious liberty included vague but broad language, saying “at least some for-profit corporations” can refuse to hire workers whose beliefs and conduct are “consistent with the employer’s religious beliefs.”

In a behind-closed-doors speech to the anti-gay Religious Right legal group Alliance Defending Freedom, Sessions praised the group’s work to create religious exemptions to anti-discrimination laws.

The Trump administration has urged the Supreme Court to back a Colorado baker who ran afoul of the state’s anti-discrimination law by refusing to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple. Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern called the administration’s brief in the case “cynical, dishonest, and embarrassing.” White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders echoed comments made by the solicitor general’s office and said Trump would have no problem with businesses hanging signs saying they don’t serve LGBT customers.

Trump also supports passage of the First Amendment Defense Act, which would enshrine the Religious Right’s desired right to discriminate into federal law.

Empowering an anti-LGBTQ inner circle

In addition to Cabinet nominees like Sessions, DeVos, and Ben Carson, Trump has surrounded himself with anti-LGBT Religious Right activists and leaders and given them powerful positions within the Executive Branch. For example, Roger Severino, a former Heritage Foundation staffer with what a dozen U.S. senators described as “a long history of making bigoted statements toward lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people,” is now leading Office of Civil Rights at the Department of Health and Human Services.

The intensely anti-LGBTQ Family Research Council has bragged of its victories, which include placing former FRC staffers in “top positions” at the Department of Health and Human Services. FRC’s Ken Blackwell, who says that homosexuality “defies barnyard logic,” led the domestic policy operation for Trump’s transition team.

ProPublica revealed in April that James Renne, who was part of Trump’s transition “landing team” at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence before snagging a senior job at the Department of Education, had helped to orchestrate a scandalous purge of LGBTQ employees and information at the Office of Special Counsel during the George W. Bush administration.

Trump has also boosted the public profile of anti-LGBTQ activists like Robert Jeffress, one of Trump’s earliest and most ardent evangelical supporters. Jeffress was chosen to preach at a private service before Trump’s inauguration and has remained a high-profile defender of the administration. Jeffress calls homosexuality “a miserable lifestyle,” said that marriage equality is “the greatest sign of the End Times that we see in our country right now,” and declared that “as a nation, we cannot be blessed by God if we’re rejecting God.”

Appointing anti-LGBT activists to United Nations Delegation

Trump appointed officials from C-Fam and the Heritage Foundation to the U.S. delegation to UN Commission on the Status of Women. C-Fam, also classified as an anti-LGBTQ hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, is so committed to resisting any recognition of the human rights of LGBTQ people in international agreements that it has teamed up with some of the world’s most repressive regimes to safeguard “traditional” notions of gender, sexuality and family.

Praising Anti-LGBTQ Groups

Trump’s first year in office has been one long thank-you to the conservative white evangelicals who voted overwhelmingly to make him president. Trump and Pence joined other GOP leaders at Ralph Reed’s Road To Majority conference in June; Trump spoke at the opening luncheon, where he said, “I will never, ever let you down.” A few months later, Trump was back before Religious Right activists at the Values Voter Summit, which is convened by the Family Research Council, designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as an anti-LGBTQ hate group.

Supporting Roy Moore

Roy Moore, twice removed from his position as Alabama’s Chief Justice, was the most extreme anti-LGBTQ candidate in recent memory. Moore’s hostility to gay people extends far beyond marriage equality; he believes homosexuality should be criminalized. Yet Trump not only backed Moore’s candidacy with speeches and robocalls, he also dragged the Republican National Committee into spending money on Moore’s behalf.

Midnight Meme Of The Day!

-by Noah

While watching MSNBC last Tuesday afternoon, I caught a glimpse of Republoperv Roy Moore riding his horse to vote. The horse's name is Sassy and it was plain that Moore was having trouble controlling her. Sassy clearly had thoughts of throwing Roy Moore off her back. Who wouldn't?

Horses are among the most intelligent and expressive creatures on Earth, and it's not just about body language. One look at Sassy's mouth and eyes and anyone with any sensitivity can see that Sassy is one very unhappy horse. When a horse is happy and likes and respects its rider, horse and rider are as one; just look at film of any Kentucky Derby or a seasoned cowboy moving a heard of cattle with a horse. Watching Moore and his horse was painful. I kept rooting for Sassy to toss Moore to the ground. Alas, it didn't happen but something just as good did happen that day.

Please say a prayer for Sassy. You might even want to send some money to an animal rights and welfare charity in Sassy's name. It would be a wonderful Christmas Miracle if Sassy got more contributions than Moore got votes.

Midnight Meme Of The Day!

-by Noah

There you have it. Democrat Doug Jones has ever so narrowly beaten Mitch McConnell and Donald Trump's Great Perv Hope, Judge Roy Moore, in the Alabama Senate race. But, the Alabama race has distilled, for all to see, what it means to be a member of the Republican Party in 2017. Some Republicans would try to sucker you into believing that the votes and predilections of Alabama republicans don't reflect the votes and predilections of Republicans as a whole, but let's get real. The national offices of the Republican Party not only sent Roy Moore their money, they sent the hopes of their highest profile politicians, and they even sent their president; a president with his own issues when it comes to sexual assault and pedophilia to put their names on the line in support of their guy. Meanwhile at FOX "News," they've done a 180 and are blaming Moore, not for his stalking young girls but for just (vaguely) being "a bad candidate". One loon on Laura Ingraham's nightly circus show stressed that Jone's win in no way means that people might start to look toward democrats in the 2018 elections. She called Alabama "an outlier," as if a Democrat winning in Alabama for the first time in decades meant nothing. She assured FOX viewers that republicans everywhere still loved the wonderful Donald Trump. Then it was, immediately back to attacking Robert Mueller. Election? What election?

It's not just that the message of the Republican Party is now "Assault my wife. Prey on my kids. Do whatever it takes to take away my healthcare, my Social Security, ruin the lives of 'gays,' and raise my taxes." Republicans aren't running away from this message. They are campaigning on it.

Should any of this be surprising? No. It's just that they are now more arrogant and confident in their message than ever before. This is the Age Of Trump. Please keep in mind that Alabama had already elected an openly racist and homophobic senator named Jeff Sessions who was once deemed too racist for a federal court appointment but was, just this year, unanimously approved, by all republican senators, to be the Attorney General of the United States. They voted for him four times. That's four six year terms. To my knowledge, no one has accused Sessions of being a pedophile, but, it's safe to say that, in voting for Sessions four times, the people of Alabama pushed the boundaries of what is acceptable (to them at least) to the point where supporting someone who stalks teenagers right into their classrooms was inevitable.

With Roy Moore, Alabama republicans spoke loud and clear and voted to have their state remain 47th in education, 47th in healthcare, and 45th in the economy. They voted against Doug Jones, a conservative Democrat, but a man who dared to prosecute their beloved KKK when they bombed a black church and killed four young girls. They voted for a man who said things were better when we had slavery. They voted for a man, who like Trump, supports Putin. They voted for a man who said that 9/11 was a punishment from God for sodomy. Some of them did it in the name of "protecting babies;" in the name of Republican Jesus, from being educated, being healthy, and having economic opportunities, I suppose; not to mention to turn them over to pedophiles at the malls. "Suffer the little children, and forbid them not, to come to me." That's your Republican Jesus. That's your Republican Party.

Midnight Meme Of The Day!

-by Noah

Within 24 hours of tonight's meme being posted, we should know where Alabama stands. Will they vote for Roy Moore to, once again, endorse racism, homophobia and other indecency; this time while adding their support for child molestation, or, will they vote for Doug Jones, a decent man who prosecuted those who killed four young girls in a church bombing in Birmingham? Judging from the past, even the very, very recent past, I suspect that many Alabama voters despise Doug Jones for that very fact. One need only look at the voter suppression tactics that have been codified into law by the state's republican dominated legislature.

I know that a Senator Roy Moore probably wouldn't be the first accused pedophile in the U.S. Senate, but he may be the first one to be banned from a public shopping mall for being a clear and present danger to young girls. He's been open about his proclivities since the day he telephoned a local high school looking for a date. Today's Christians support that kind of thing. To them, when they say "Let us pray," it's spelled "Let us prey." They are all for protecting babies in the womb, but, once a little girl can walk... well, she's on her own and fair game.

A severely mentally ill president who reportedly has his own history of the same tendencies has repeatedly urged Alabama to send Moore to the nation's capitol. No one wants to be the only out in public pedophile in town. Virtually his whole party, from Senate Majority Leader McConnell and House Speaker Ryan on down have embraced Moore and all of the disease he stands for. If, in the likely event that the Devil wins this round, I will feel sick and worried for those young women in the congressional page program. I will await the irony of one of them, armed with a Republican-approved concealed carry permit and a gun, violently defending herself on the steps of the Capitol Building. After all, the Lord works in mysterious ways, doesn't she?