The problem with Roy Moore

Like some of you, I thought Judge Moore would pull this out because he was running in Alabama.  Unfortunately, a flawed GOP candidate can lose even in Alabama.

What does it mean going forward?

In politics, the winners always explain victories in grand terms.  We heard Jones last night speak in terms of "change" and other things.

In fact, Senator-Elect Jones had very little to do with his victory.  It was a referendum on Roy Moore, a very flawed candidate whose problems predated the Washington Post article.

Doug Schoen has it about right in his analysis:

Surely, Jones' win emboldens Democrats to compete in states like Nevada where Republicans are potentially now vulnerable. To succeed, the Democrats will need more than a message of resistance or opposition, but a centrist pro-growth agenda of their own.

Mr. Schoen has a warning for both parties as well.  I agree that the GOP needs to get more practical and choose candidates who can win elections, not primaries. 

The good news is that the GOP has put the Moore problem away.  In other words, no Moore circus or questions about an ethics investigation or more newspaper articles clarifying where he did or didn't touch young women.  Moore is history, and that's a blessing for Republicans who would rather talk about the tax plan.

The bad news is for Alabama and Senator-Elect Jones.  In the summer, Jones was nominated because no one in his right mind thought he'd win.  He is the kind of liberal who usually makes concession speeches in Alabama.

So how popular will Senator Jones be in a few months?  Not very, and that's what we will be talking about in 2018 until he is defeated in 2020.

In elections, candidates matter a lot.  A flawed candidate usually loses, as we saw with Clinton and Moore.

PS: You can listen to my show (Canto Talk) and follow me on Twitter.

Like some of you, I thought Judge Moore would pull this out because he was running in Alabama.  Unfortunately, a flawed GOP candidate can lose even in Alabama.

What does it mean going forward?

In politics, the winners always explain victories in grand terms.  We heard Jones last night speak in terms of "change" and other things.

In fact, Senator-Elect Jones had very little to do with his victory.  It was a referendum on Roy Moore, a very flawed candidate whose problems predated the Washington Post article.

Doug Schoen has it about right in his analysis:

Surely, Jones' win emboldens Democrats to compete in states like Nevada where Republicans are potentially now vulnerable. To succeed, the Democrats will need more than a message of resistance or opposition, but a centrist pro-growth agenda of their own.

Mr. Schoen has a warning for both parties as well.  I agree that the GOP needs to get more practical and choose candidates who can win elections, not primaries. 

The good news is that the GOP has put the Moore problem away.  In other words, no Moore circus or questions about an ethics investigation or more newspaper articles clarifying where he did or didn't touch young women.  Moore is history, and that's a blessing for Republicans who would rather talk about the tax plan.

The bad news is for Alabama and Senator-Elect Jones.  In the summer, Jones was nominated because no one in his right mind thought he'd win.  He is the kind of liberal who usually makes concession speeches in Alabama.

So how popular will Senator Jones be in a few months?  Not very, and that's what we will be talking about in 2018 until he is defeated in 2020.

In elections, candidates matter a lot.  A flawed candidate usually loses, as we saw with Clinton and Moore.

PS: You can listen to my show (Canto Talk) and follow me on Twitter.