His spokeswoman said that Moore will work to unseat both the Alabama Governor and Sec of State who voted to certify the election so we haven't seen the last of him.

Wouldn't accurately predicting the exact results of an election with tens or hundreds of thousands of voters come with comparable odds to one-in-fifteen billion?

CNN is just so ****ing weak.

If you want to use the interview to humiliate the Moore team, go full out and do it. Few have deserved it more. Being smart and clever is nice and all, but the important thing is to get in kill shots.

"Why are XYZ former Moore backers not supporting this fraud complaint?" is a question that serves no purpose. First of all, it gives the Moore spokeswoman an opportunity to go pretty much straight into talking points. Second, its actually pretty reasonable for someone with a reputation at stake to wait on the sidelines with their finger in the air at the early stages of an election results challenge (Trump obv isn't reasonable but that's neither here nor there). Even if they are going into this interview assuming good faith from Team Moore its a waste.

The spokeswoman keeps repeating these specific talking points about this being one county and twenty precincts and a one-in-fifteen billion chance of not being rigged yet is never pressed on that at all. How hard could it have been to force the spokeswoman into having to demonstrate she doesn't know how numbers work?

Evolution deniers love to point out that humans evolving exactly as they did had a remarkably low chance of occurring therefore evolution couldn't have happened. Strong possibility something along those lines is at the heart of their complaint.

Why the hell would someone get three degrees? Why not do what every other bugger that wants to stay in education does and do a Masters then a PHD? The fact that he has supposedly got three degrees in similar subjects indicates that he isn't bright enough to step up to a higher level.

If one gets both a masters and a phd in a subject, then one tends to have three degrees

Yeah, it’s tough to make any sense of that claim. Maybe if you assume the election will have similar demographic makeup to 2016 (just lower overall turnout), it’s a 1 in 15 billion chance.....but there were very obvious reasons as to why that assumption was crazy before any votes were counted. Honestly can’t think of any less stupid way to conclude massive fraud was likely.

You know, it never occurred to me because of LOL religion. But if you believe in God and believe God will forgive your sins, you literally have carte blanche to commit any crime you want. Want to bang a kid? God will forgive you. Want to steal money? God is good. It's a hell of a way to live when you think about it.

Kay Ivey misplayed her hand in this situation, but she may have been screwed either way ...

When news of Roy Moore's alleged pedophilia first broke in the Washington Post, Governor Ivey expressed "shock" and dismay. In an impromptu press interview she appeared to be distressed, answering reporters questions in a very quiet and subdued manner. (Her reaction appeared genuine as she may have just learned the news from the television reporter posing the question. Her entourage appeared to be blindsided by the news as well.) Judging by her reaction, the impression I got is that she truly understood how unsettling such allegations are to ordinary people - not to mention voters. She followed this initial reaction by going "radio silent" for several days, saying nothing [to the press] concerning Roy Moore. The next time she addressed the issue of Roy Moore, her take on the situation had changed ...

Kay Ivey obviously huddled with her political advisers. They made the [political] calculation that it didn't matter whether or not the allegations against Judge Moore were true or not. The important factor was that Roy Moore was likely to win - certainly more likely than that "Democrat" Jones - and she couldn't afford to publicly be against [winner] Moore and expect him to endorse her in 2018 when she runs for a full term as Governor. She knew that if she exhibited a bit of political courage by declaring that she could not - in good conscience - support Roy Moore, she would surely pay the price when he encouraged his supporters to vote against her in next year's Republican primary. (Richard Shelby was not a "profile in courage" as he's in his 70's and will probably retire rather than stand for reelection in 2020.) But Kay Ivey is ambitious and loves being Governor, so she swallowed her self respect and announced that she "... is a Republican and she supports Republican candidates" so she would be voting for Roy Moore.

Of course, the unexpected happened, (i.e. Moore lost), and now Kay Ivey finds herself in a pickle. Rather than showing gratitude that Governor Ivey didn't come out against him, (like that traitor Shelby did), Moore has announced that he will encourage his [mostly evangelical] supporters to vote against Mrs. Ivey. In a crowded 3-4 candidate Republican primary field, she may not even make the runoff. In short, of all the women that Roy Moore has [allegedly] diddled, Kay Ivey is the one that's getting screwed!

That's politics though ... Sometimes you have to flip the coin and hope it lands the way you called it. Kay Ivey called "heads" (Moore would win) and the coin landed tails.

On a separate note, not that I'm any more clairvoyant or astute than any other wag, but I think liberal and progressive Democrats are mistaken to believe that what happened here in Alabama is a harbinger for what will happen nationwide in the 2018 mid-terms. What happened here in Alabama was a fluke. If the Washington Post had not reported the bombshell accusations involving Roy Moore, we would almost certainly be calling him "Senator elect" Moore. He was coasting to an almost certain victory prior to November 9th when the first story hit the paper. Those stories in the WP surely had the effect of suppressing Republican turnout - which turned out to be fatal for Roy Moore. Rather than directing his anger and rage at Kay Ivey, John Merrill, and Richard Shelby; Jeff Bezos is the one Roy Moore should really be hating. (I suppose "Sassy" is hoping and praying that Moore doesn't run for statewide office again ...)

The idea that Jeff Bezos controls WAPO is a bull**** Trump talking point. he doesn't control that paper, the way, say Rupert Murdoch controls Fox, he just owns it.

I'm just here to say I called it : )

Is it common in America for people to say that someone with a PHD has three degrees? Over on this side of the pond we would just say they have a PHD.

It's the same way in the US. There are some weird programs where you get a masters degree as part of the process of getting a Ph.D. and wind up with three degrees, but it's unusual. Most programs you just get a phd.

If I hear someone has three degrees, to me that means degrees in three different fields.

Wat? It’s totally standard at US universities to be awarded a masters after you’ve finished the bulk of your classes and have passed your quals but before you’ve finished your thesis and defended.

no but that's like the least dumb thing that lady said, and probably the only thing that is actually true.

Wat urself. I've never heard of masters being awarded without its own thesis and defense. Quick Google search shows a thesis is a standard requirement for a masters degree. In my own PhD program, the only people who had masters came into the program with them. You could do a masters defense along the way, but no one did because of the extra work it would entail.

My “masters thesis” was just a peer reviewed publication. It was no extra work. There was no formal defense, but you have to finish most of the coursework, pass quals of which orals are the basically the “defense” portion. All of that you have to do to become a PhD candidate anyway. You can maybe just not apply for a masters, but everybody I know just did. Pretty much every grad school I visited was something similar

I guess it just depends on the field. Certainly no program in my field was like that, but I've heard that sort of thing it is the norm in some areas.

Theres a trend toward "professional" masters and Phds that dont require a thesis, for degrees that arent academia oriented. Oddly enough my masters degree did not, but My undergrad is one of the few schools that requires a thesis. Although its not a true research thesis, its more of a project and write up done for your co-oo employer. It was a boat load of work though.

It may be a difference between the life sciences and physical sciences. Every life science student at my institution got a masters after completing their coursework and passing their quals. You could even walk for it if you really wanted, but the vast majority don't. Virtually none of my peers talks about their masters as anything other than a stepping stone to getting the doctorate, if it gets even that much attention, but plenty would boast at the time about getting it mainly to commemorate passing quals.

Can confirm most engineering programs I know award masters after passing quals. And the only time anyone walked for it was when Obama gave the commencement address. Not only did he give the speech but he personally handed out all the graduate degrees.

MA's in Philosophy tend to be taught modular courses and you pass with coursework and or exams and a dissertation of somewhere between 16-20k words. This does not need to be defended

MPhils tend to be by research a 40k dissertation which will be defended usually and students enrolled may be offered the option to transition directly to a phd

Most "serious" philosophy programs in the US only admit PhD applicants, though many award a masters along the way, generally with a thesis. My sense is that most departments at research universities operate like this, except in "practical" disciplines like engineering, business, teaching, etc.

At the program I went to, a masters was sort of the consolation prize they gave you if you decided to bail out of the PhD program midway through. As long as you passed quals and had enough classwork, they pretty much handed you the masters on your way out.

In my PhD program one got a masters, if one wanted, upon passing to formal doctoral "candidacy", which required writing something that was in any case far more involved than the typical master's thesis and getting it approved by one's future thesis committee.

Most masters programs don't require theses. The professional masters (those that cost a lot of money to enter) never do. Can't make the paying customers work hard. Writing a thesis is the price you pay if you enter an academically oriented masters program, but then you're just a sucker. Masters programs are basically universities trolling for money and business connections. They have little or no academic value.