There’s something so remarkably ….. expected, about an article like this.
In every election, the losers (and in this case, the winners) spend time decomposing the reasons WHY they lost (or why they defeated) the ‘other side’. They do this, initially, without any data, and in the case of a state election, they do so from afar, without really knowing (or in many cases without ever having been to) the state (in this case, Alabama) they are trying to understand.
What this amounts to is an attempt to psychoanalyze hundreds of thousands of voters with only the results of an election to guide you.
If that sounds like a foolish thing to do, you’d be right.
And inevitably, the results of that “psychoanalysis” are always the same. The opposition got the results that they did from the election due to the moral failings and/or the lack of intelligence of the opposition.
”We, in our infinite wisdom and sophistication, did the right thing, while those unwashed, uneducated rubes…..well, we really don’t know why they’re allowed in the same country as we wonderful people are. “
That’s pretty much what it comes down to; a national exercise in virtue-signalling.
Now, I don’t know what makes a “white woman in Alabama” vote for Roy Moore. I suspect, however, that it doesn’t have anything to do with her being intellectually or morally inferior to a white woman anywhere else. It probably has to do with (to the OP’s main point, when you strip away the moralizing) the polarization of American politics (which these exercises in virtue signalling are a part of) where you vote for your PARTY, no matter what sort of moron they nominate, because if you don’t, the other side will get to push policies ahead and appoint judges you don’t like and the result, from your standpoint, would even be more unthinkable than having a man like Moore in office.
The way to attract people like that to your “side” is through reason. No republican ever became a democrat because the democrats insulted them.
And vice versa.