A bag of horse manure running on the Republican ticket would have had a 28 point lead in Alabama.
Moore mailed it in and disappeared from the campaign trail in the closing weeks of the race. He refused to debate his opponent. Hillary Clinton ran a more energetic campaign.
He didn't just have a 28 point lead, dude. He BLEW a 28 point lead.
And so what's worse than a bag of horse manure? A child molesting rapist, that's what.
Moore mailed it in and disappeared from the campaign trail in the closing weeks of the race.
I've oft heard that repeated as if it holds some sort of significance. Pray tell, how many campaign appearances would your theoretical bag of horse manure have needed to make?
He refused to debate his opponent.
Another assertion that i've disemboweled on previous occasions. A man 28 points ahead is a fool to debate his opponent.(Politics 101) It won't help him at all. By the time it would have been beneficial to debate Doug Jones, their rolls had reversed, and it was no longer in the interest of Doug Jones to engage in any debate.
He didn't just have a 28 point lead, dude. He BLEW a 28 point lead.
Circular reasoning. You contend Moore was a bad candidate, and as proof you offer that he lost. You argue he lost because he was a bad candidate.
I point out that lying kook accusations spread by the media weapon (totally under the control of the Democrat party) and backstabbing by the members of his own party are what caused the loss. Remove those two things and Moore would have won massively. (ergo, not a bad candidate.) Remove the backstabbing by his own party, (Richard Shelby mostly) and he would have won marginally.
I have noticed over the years that whenever a Tea Party candidate is savaged by the media and the establishment, the refrain is always that he/she was a "bad candidate."
In previous responses I have posted a dozen examples of bad Democrat candidates that nobody ever seems to call "bad candidates", and this is because the media covers up their stupidity and stupid statements, while putting our people, (especially Tea Party reformers) under the microscope.