Did NRSC Coordinate Hit with WaPo, Democrats Against Roy Moore?

The other night, I was watching Fox News’ Sean Hannity interviewing Senator Lindsey Graham about the recent Special Council Report that reportedly exonerates President Trump of any Russian collusion during the 2016 Election.

As I watched it, I couldn’t help but to recall how Graham’s status as a conservative has been elevated to the point that he is now this great defender of the cause ever since his emotional outburst during the Kavanaugh hearings last summer. I remembered how Graham and other republican senators took a measured position of presumed innocence during the allegations of sexual assault against Brett Kavanaugh. Republicans in the senate did something unusual when a fellow republican was under attack, they actually defended them.

Image Source CBS: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/gop-senators-weigh-in-on-allegations-against-candidate-roy-moore/ Senate republicans quickly abandoned Judge Roy Moore.

Let’s go back to that pivotal day in the Alabama Special Election for U.S. Senate back in 2017, November 9th. This, as we all know, is the date that the Washington Post broke a story that alleged Senate Republican nominee, Roy Moore sexually assaulted teenage girls almost four decades earlier. Allegations that were strikingly similar to those made against Trump’s Supreme Court Nominee, Brett Kavanaugh, almost one year later.

Unlike Kavanaugh, Moore’s defenders in DC were few and far between, if at all during his hour of persecution. Let’s take a moment to revisit how quickly the senate turned its back on Roy Moore and how unified it was when doing so.

Look at this article that was published on Nov 10th, 2017. Just one day after the WaPo story broke the allegations. The headline reads, NRSC exits fund raising agreement with Roy Moore’s campaign. The speed in which the National Republican Senate Committee abandoned Moore is astounding. Did the committee act solely in response to the November 9th Washington Post article or did they have some advanced notice that this story was about to break? Why didn’t the committee consider the other side of the allegations, Judge Roy Moore’s side, before they quickly dropped financial support?

Now look at this article and how it presents a litany of statements from Sen. Cory Gardner, Sen. John McCain, Sen. Luther Strange, Sen. John Thune, Sen. Richard Shelby, Sen. Jeff Flake all republicans, and all but one use the phrase “if the allegations are true” or similar language to qualify their statements of concern about Moore getting elected with this cloud over him. These statements were made on November 9th, 2017, just hours after the allegations were published by WaPo! Were these republican senators aware of these allegations beforehand? Why did they all fail to give Roy Moore the presumption of innocence that he was due? The same presumption of innocence that was given to Brett Kavanaugh?

The irony of this is that if Lindsey Graham or any other senator would have stood up for Roy Moore back in 2017, in the same manner that they stood up for Kavanaugh in 2018, there most likely would have been one less democrat there to vote against Kavanaugh and the left might have deemed it futile to hijack the SCOTUS hearings at the eleventh hour!

I welcome your comments below.

Eddie Sexton Trusts the Washington Post Enough to Allow Them to Download His Phone. Why?

Even though Eddie Sexton,  the former attorney for Roy Moore accuser, Leigh Corfman, only represented his client for a few days prior and up to the November 9th, 2017 Washington Post article being published, his testimony in a recent deposition reveals his first hand account of the media frenzy that he and his client endured at the onset of what became a series of poll shifting allegations that contributed to Doug Jones’ razor thin margin of victory or Roy Moore back in December of 2017.

Roy Moore speaks to the media. Image courtesy of Alabama Political Reporter

In the deposition, Sexton details the sudden influx of reporters at his office. Sexton was representing Corfman during the hours following the publishing of an article in the Washington Post that contained allegations of sexual assault by Roy Moore.  Sexton explained that he thought his client needed a PR agency instead of an attorney. Below is his reason why:

“Because I had 30 reporters in my parking lot, and I had them blowing up my phone. I had them staked out at my house. I had them staked out at my farm. I had them calling my wife’s cell phone, sending e-mails, Facebook messages, calling friends trying to get me to come in, trying to break in the office.”

The attention even got to the point that Sexton had to take covert measures just to leave his office.  Sexton testified:

“I actually had to leave and go out the back door because they were, like, blocking in my truck and stuff. So, I actually left and got — I think I took somebody else’s car because I was going to some function with Bill Baxley or for Bill Baxley. And so, I went and changed clothes at — at the bathroom at Sonic so I could come back and — and go to that thing without getting attacked by the media.”

Reporters even pushed their way into his office:

“So, during that intervening time when everybody was pounding on the door and screaming and yelling at the windows, one of the Al.com reporters pushed his way into — through the door when somebody else came in, and I brought him back to the conference room where I was to talk to him so that the receptionist and everybody wouldn’t be freaking out thinking that something bad was about to happen. So, I got him back there and talked to him for, like, four minutes and then sent him out. But he reported then that I was representing Leigh as her lawyer at that time, and I was. So, once he did that, then I knew that I couldn’t then say, oh, no, I am not representing her, because I knew how Breitbart and them, at that point, would report on it, and I didn’t want something negative to happen to Leigh or something adversely — potential — something that was potentially adverse to her.”

Notice in the above excerpt how Sexton decided not to reveal to the media his decision to no longer represent Corfman.  This decision was made in the frenzy that occurred during the hours just after the WaPo article came out on that same day.   His reasoning for this was, “because I knew how Breitbart and them, at that point, would report on it, and I didn’t want something negative to happen to Leigh or something adversely — potential — something that was potentially adverse to her.”  Did Sexton view “Breitbart and them” as a media outlet (or outlets) that were seeking to negate or offset the WaPo story that had just come out about the allegations of sexual assault by Roy Moore?

This is the first thing that puzzles me about this.  If Sexton viewed Breitbart as being “potentially adverse” to Corfman and he was willing to keep his decision to no longer represent her from the media on November 9th, why then did he agree to attend a meeting with Breitbart reporters just a few days later?  A November 13th meeting where Sexton claims he was offered money and a chance to meet Steven Bannon?  Wait what? Bannon=Breitbart back in those days!

Now having read that, let’s fast forward to March of 2018.

In my last post, I reported that Sexton actually allowed reporters to “download” his phone.  The information obtained was used as supporting material for an article that was published in March of 2018 in The Washington Post. Here is what Sexton told attorneys when asked about him allowing WaPo to download his phone.

“Q All right. So, if you had any communications on that phone with Leigh Corfman, they would have downloaded that?

A No, yeah. No, that is what I am saying. Everything — there is nothing that is deleted that we can’t recover or I can’t recreate and verify that that is where it came from and what happened to it.

Q Okay. So — so, I am saying is, if there were communications between you and Leigh Corfman on that phone, The Washington Post has it anyway, correct?

A Yeah, but I am pretty sure there weren’t.”

Readers think about this for a moment.  Make a list of people that you would trust to download your phone?  If I had to guess that list would be a short one and only include the most trusted people in your life.  Why would an attorney from Alabama allow a Washington D.C. paper such access?

I welcome your comments.

Attorney Says WaPo Downloaded His Phone

More revelations from the Corfman v. Moore civil case.   The transcript,  available at pa.alacourt.com, records former Corfman attorney, Eddie Sexton, admitting that the Washington Post “downloaded” his phone, prior to publishing of the March 2018 article that reported Sexton’s account of the November 2017 meeting, where Sexton alleges he was offered $10,000 to provide a statement to two Breitbart reporters. Deer Stand Hill will continue to comb through this transcript and monitor this case since it’s the only source providing new information regarding the 2017 Special Election for U.S. Senate in Alabama.  Be sure to follow this site for updates and check out this portion of the transcript below.




This is significant since The Washington Post could have even more knowledge of what actually happened during the Alabama election back in 2017.  Remember, WaPo already reported to have possession of a document called “Project Birmingham Debrief.”  Sadly, the public has not been allowed to see this entire document.

Sexton’s Testimony Confirms Claims of Corfman Family “Sex-Parties”

Fortunately, we have the ongoing defamation lawsuit against Roy Moore to keep providing us with information to compare against what is known about Project Birmingham.

The latest information stems from testimony about a November 13th, 2017 meeting that, according to this filing, involved Leigh Corfman’s attorney, Eddie Sexton, someone from Breitbart News as well as Bert Davi and Gary Lantrip, who were associates of Mr. Sexton.

Below is an excerpt from a document available on pa.alacourt.com. The excerpt confirms some of the quoted remarks in the defense filing submitted last week. While Sexton seemed to confirm the claims made in prior testimony about “sex-parties,” the testimony also shows his unwillingness to speak “disparagingly” about her.

There seems to be conflicting accounts as to why Sexton dropped Corman as a client.

In my view, this confirms the need to hear the Breitbart recordings made during this meeting. I believe the recordings could have a major impact on the credibility of the entire November 9th Washington Post article. Be sure to follow this blog for updates since there are no other mainstream media outlets covering this.

Who would have thought that Corfman’s lawsuit against Judge Moore would have provided so much information about what really happened in Alabama back in 2017?




Motion Filed to Subpoena Breitbart Reporters in Corfman v. Moore Case

The defense for 2017 U.S. Senate Candidate, Roy Moore, has filed a motion to subpoena two Brietbart reporters in order to settle “dissimilar accounts” of a meeting that is alleged to have taken place between a former attorney for Leigh Corfman and Brietbart reporters just days after the November 9th, 2017 Washington Post article became public. The WaPo article alleged that Roy Moore assaulted Corfman when she was a teenager.

The filing contains allegations of accounts of prior sexual relations between Corfman and her former attorney Eddie Sexton.  The filing also indicates that a recording of the meeting exist and Breitbart is in possession of that recording.  Below is the complete PDF of the filing.  Be sure to follow this blog for updates and commentary as I process this information further.



(PB-Post4) Statement From the FEC

In my last post, I left you with the expectation that I was looking into if the Federal Election Commission was doing anything regarding Attorney General Marshall’s formal request that Project Birmingham be investigated by the FEC.

Since no other news outlet is reporting on this at the moment, I thought my readers would at least like to know whether or not the FEC is in fact looking into this matter.  I recently sent a request for information to the FEC and they replied quickly.  FEC Deputy Press Officer, Christian Hilland, responded with the pasted text below.


A provision of federal campaign finance law requires that any Commission action on an enforcement matter be kept strictly confidential until the case is resolved.  Therefore, to comply with this provision and to protect the interests of those involved in an enforcement case that is before the agency or on a matter that has the potential to come to the agency, we are unable to comment.

Potential violations of federal campaign finance law may be brought to the Commission’s attention through the complaint process. This process enables anyone to file a sworn complaint alleging violations and explaining the basis for the allegations. A description of the complaint process is available here. Each complaint is reviewed on a case-by-case basis, and therefore, the length of every case will vary.

Note that a vote of at least four Commissioners is needed at every stage, including whether to (1) find reason to believe and initiate an investigation, (2) find probable cause that a violation has occurred or is about to occur, (3) settle a matter, or (4) authorize filing a lawsuit.  If there are not four votes at any stage, the Commission will not proceed to the next step of the process.

Okay, I’m going to take that as a yes.  The FEC is currently investigating Project Birmingham.  I wonder if the media outlets, that reported to have documents from the September and December 2017 meetings, are cooperating?

I welcome your comments and invite you to follow via email below.

(PB-Post3) Sandy Rios is Talking About Project Birmingham

It was such an honor to be a guest on Sandy Rios in the Morning!  She was such a great host and I have a great deal of respect for her and what she has accomplished in her career as a broadcaster.  As a guest on her show, I was not only honored but also excited that I was able to have a platform to discuss Project Birmingham. See my original post that prompted this interview.

This audio clip above is the podcast of the radio show that aired on Febuary 8th, 2019.

This was my first time appearing on a national stage as a guest.  I can say that answering questions on a radio show with timed segments is most certainly a different experience than asking my own questions to others on my podcast with unlimited time.  I want to address in more detail some of her questions, as well as my answers, from the interview that time, (or my veering off topic) wouldn’t permit me to answer.

Before I go any further, I want to welcome any visitors that may have come here as a result of Sandy’s show! I would like invite you all of follow this blog via email, subscribe to the podcast on iTunes or Google Play, or follow on social media.

First, let me explain the Google search terms I was referencing toward the end of the interview.  You see, if you look at the leaked after action report, you will see that one of the highlights they touted was that Doug Jones’ prosecution of the KKK was emphasized in order to attract black voters.  Searching for Doug Jones wins primary will return articles from the August 15th primary where the mainstream media all mention Jones as being a former U.S. prosecutor who prosecuted the suspects in the Birmingham Church bombings.  Doug Jones KKK will render articles that use different phrasing when introducing Doug Jones. 

“focused on Jones’ history prosecuting the KKK”

After September 27th, Jones is referred to as “Doug Jones, who prosecuted the KKK.”  The latter search renders articles published just after the Republican runoff when the race became a match up between Jones and Moore.  It is clear to me that the main stream media outlets all started emphasizing that Jones prosecuted the KKK after the September meeting, just as Project Birmingham intended.  This is not to imply anything negative about Jones and this great work of putting those Democratic terrorist behind bars, it is simply a method I devised to test the authenticity of the leaked documents.

Do your part to help get the truth out there.  Share this page on your social media.

Second, I want to give a better answer to that final question Sandy asked in her interview. Basically, I’ve discovered a few myths that the media are propagating about Moore and Project Birmingham.  Let me list three that I should have mentioned to Sandy.

Myth 1. Project Birmingham didn’t really affect the outcome of the 2017 Special Election in Alabama.

Go back and look at the turnout numbers in the August primary and the December general. (I did actually talk about this in the interview)  You will see that for every one Democrat that votes in the primary, four voted in the general on December 12th, 2017.  That is huge!  Don’t be misled by the 22,000 margin of victory for Jones. The fact that the Democrats made it past 40 percentage points is enough to make an Alabama liberal stare at the ceiling with upward clasped hands next to their “holiday tree.”

Myth 2. The most controversial thing Project Birmingham did was produce the false flag by using Russian-like Twitter accounts to follow Moore .  

This is a distraction from the real cause of Judge Moore’s defeat, the allegations of sexual misconduct.  Twitter is inconsequential to most Alabama voters and this didn’t amount to a hill of beans.  The only thing that moved the needle in the polling were the allegations that starting coming after November 9th, this was one day after a poll had Moore up by eleven points.  While I can’t definitively claim that Project Birmingham was behind the allegations, there is evidence that the project, which reports say involved Fusion GPS, was working in Alabama during the time the Washington Post reporters were trying to convince the accusers to come forward.  I discuss this in more detail during the interview but just remember not to be distracted by the Twitter nonsense. The eight hundred pound gorilla is the allegations and if they are a product of Project Birmingham, not some cryptic twitter accounts that had no effect.

Myth 3. Roy Moore was a weak candidate.

This one really chaps me every time I hear it.  How can you say Moore was weak when he beat Luther Strange, the most well funded candidate Alabama has ever seen?  Strange was also endorsed by President Trump.  A weak candidate would have never had made it past the primaries.  Also, give me one person that can be successfully branded as a pedophile in the media, have little or no support from the National Republican Party, and still lose by only 22,000 votes?  I wonder how this election would have turned out if just one senator in DC stood up and fought back for Moore like they did Brett Kavanaugh a year later.  It was Roy against the world back in 2017 and the world only won by 1.7 percent.

Finally, I want to update my readers on the investigation of Project Birmingham itself.  I mentioned in the interview with Ms. Rios that Alabama’s attorney general was looking into this.  Yesterday, I received an email from that office with a copy of the letter that indicates this has been deferred to the Federal Election Commission.

2019-01-04 fec letter

Deer Stand Hill will be following up with the FEC for updates so be sure to enter your email address on this page to see where this goes from here.

Before I go, I want to mention a couple of sources here that I don’t think I’ve credited enough.  Jack Posobiec at One America News made the video below.

The leaked documents from the December “After Action” report were posted by Jeff Giesea. Jeff’s post is what got me started down this road. Ya’ll stay with me and let’s see where all of this leads.

I welcome your comments below. Again, I invite you all to subscribe as well.


(PB-Post2) Moore Things That Make Me Say Hmm About Project Birmingham

I wanted to write a follow up to my prior post, where I listed what I thought were questionable circumstances surrounding Project Birmingham and how the leaked documents show possible coordination between the project and the media attacks on Roy Moore during the 2017 Special Election in Alabama.

I’m focusing this post on what I like to call the eight hundred pound gorilla in the room, the allegations of sexual assault made against Moore beginning on November 9th, 2017.  In my view, and according to the polls at the time, no other attacks against Moore damaged his double digit lead over Doug Jones like those allegations did.  Prior to November 9th, 2017, Judge Moore enjoyed an 11 point lead over Jones and even remained in the single digits for a time after The Washington Post article.

Given what we know about Project Birmingham, and the allegations that are still just… well… allegations, that gorilla may be even bigger than we know.

I went back and read the original article that was published on November 9th in The Washington Post. I also studied the leaked documents from Project Birmingham’s December “After Action” meeting.  In addition, I took another look at a recent article and listened to a podcast that NPR has published.

In light of these things, allow me to give you my ideas about why I think there is a possibility that the allegations of sexual assault made against Judge Moore during the Special Election could be connected with Project Birmingham.

Based on what we can glean from the leaked documents, Project Birmingham acknowledged at least twice that the allegations affected their “experiment” as well being detrimental to the outcome of election.  An outcome that ended up exactly as the project intended.


The above image is part of the leaked documents from the December 15th, 2017 “After Action” meeting held by Project Birmingham members and associates. Notice the second bullet point in the image.  They mention the “Wapo Report” and how they “provided major news outlets” with data that indicated “anti-Moore articles were popular.”  Also notice that they provided this information to the media “Prior to the WaPo report on Moore’s alleged child molestation.”

Now take a look at another leaked document from the December 15th meeting.  This one is a timeline that shows what actions were taken and when.


You can see in this above timeline that October, the month that the writers of the November 9th Wapo article were in Alabama working on a story about Moore supporters, is also the month that Project Birmingham experimented “with tactics to push narratives from one social media platform to another and ultimately into the press.”

These documents show me that the project was definitely shaped by the November 9th Wapo hit piece and actions were adjusted accordingly after it was published.  Notice in the timeline again how they pushed the write in candidate in December just before the election and after the allegations have been published.  Promoting a write in was far more effective after the public had been fed a litany of disgusting accusations against Moore.   Republicans would have been far more likely to look elsewhere for a candidate in December than October.

We do know from the recent reporting that Project Birmingham members claim to have also acted as “media advisors,” where they arraigned interviews between the write in candidate they were promoting and the media.

Now that we have this information, isn’t all reporting that occurred during this election suspicious?   Especially from The Washington Post?  I tend to think so.

I welcome your comments below.

(PB-Post 1) Things That Make Me Say Hmm About Project Birmingham.

By now, you have all heard of Project Birmingham, the disinformation campaign, aimed at preventing Roy Moore from winning the Alabama Special Election for U.S. Senate back in twenty seventeen.

I took particular interest in this story when it broke a few weeks ago. As you know, I covered that election more thorough than most since it was the only one going on at the time and I was able to focus my limited time blogging and podcasting (blogcasting) about it.

This is just one of the screenshots posted by writer Jeff Giesea. His article is linked below.

I consider myself to be somewhat of an expert on this election. At least an expert when it comes to knowing what transpired and when. I attended multiple rallies, including the one at the train station in downtown Montgomery where Moore appeared after his debate against Big Luther Strange. The atmosphere at that one was electric. A long list of nationally known pols were there. Names like Bannon and Palin spoke to the most fired up crowds that any politician saw in Alabama that year. There was a huge gathering of national press in attendance as well. I was there with my iPhone and monopod trying to capture what I could with what little battery life I had left on my device.

Steve Bannon with Roy Moore. Image courtesy of zimbio.com

I was unable to attend the September 26th election night watch party where after a long road of running against a Trump-endorsed, McConnell-funded, Bentley-appointed Luther Strange, Roy Moore was finally on the downhill stretch to being elected to the United States Senate.

While I couldn’t attend every event, I could follow this election daily via news stories posted to the web and social media. When Moore won the primary, I correctly predicted he would win the runoff on September 26th. After that, it was supposed to be a no brainer. After all, Steve Flowers, the premier political columnist in Alabama, had said to me repeatedly on my podcast, “In Alabama, winning the Republican nomination is tantamount to winning the election.” Steve is usually right about that.

It was a given that Roy Moore was going to beat that democrat. What’s his name? Oh yes, Doug Jones.

Little did I know at the time, what I thought was a campaign coasting its way to victory, was actually a sitting duck about to get hit with the modern political version of a thermo nuclear bomb.

As I write this, all we know is there was a meeting in Washington DC in September of 2017 where the plan was hatched to take out Moore and create a path to victory for Doug Jones.   (Correction) There was no meeting  in September of 2017.  The meeting referenced in the NPR interview linked above occurred in September 2018 in Washington D.C.  The “experiment” was executed and then the group met after the election on December 15th to see what worked and how.

I read these reports linked above and looked over the leaked documents from the December meeting. 


I’m left with more questions than answers after looking at all of this. A few questions are:


  1. Why did they “seed” the #NoMoore hashtag in September and not #NoStrange when the runoff wasn’t held until September 26th? Were they anticipating that Strange was going to lose or just out to get Roy Moore from the get go?
  2. Why is The Washington Post trying to be out front and center with their reporting of Project Birmingham when this thing has WaPo fingerprints all over it? Specifically David Weigal’s prints. Weigal is mentioned in this article  and wrote another on September 27th, the day following Moore’s nomination, where he is among the first writers in the bunch to drive the narrative about Doug Jones prosecuting the KKK. Project Birmingham wanted to increase turnout among black voters by driving home that point and all of the media were more than happy to go along with it. Weigal appears to have either been the most eager to publish or first to get the memo from the project.
  3. Was the November 9th WaPo story, the first of the allegations against Moore, connected with Project Birmingham? We know from the leaked documents that someone with the project reached out to major media organizations and presented data to show that Anti-Moore content was popular and lucrative. Did someone at the project reach out to Stephanie McCrummen in the same manner as was done with David Weigal? McCrummen wrote that she met with Moore accusers for three weeks before they finally agreed to go public. This would put her in Alabama circa October 19th. According to the leaked “After Action” documents, Project Birmingham was “experimenting, in October, with tactics to push narratives from one social platform to another and ultimately into press.” Was McCrummen’s story “pushed” to her from the project? The allegations have yet to be proven and Moore has recently taken a lie detector test that indicates he is telling the truth.
Washington Post Writer, David Weigal Image from washingtonpost.com
Pulitzer Prizer winning journalist, Stephanie McCrummen Image from nefac.org

I’m calling on the media outlets that have the documents from both the September and December meetings of Project Birmingham to release them to the public! There is no reason to hold on to them unless they want to protect an ally or even one of their own. I’m continuing to watch this story and will update this post as more information becomes available.


Interview with Rich Hobson – Roy Moore’s Campaign Manager

Campaign Manager for Judge Roy Moore for U.S. Senate discusses the Republican Primary path to victory in the 2017 Alabama Special Election for U.S. Senate.

-Outspent $57 to $3 per voter.
-Disappointed in Trump endorsement of Strange.
-This election could be a bellwether of 2018 mid-terms.


(Correction, I actually spoke with Roy Moore back in May of 2017 instead of March.)

Interview with Angi Horn Stalnaker

Interview with Angi Horn Stalnaker. She and I discuss the AL Special Election for U.S. Senate. Be sure to like this page for ongoing coverage of Alabama politics.

–Roy Moore like a Mack Truck

–Pre-election polls flawed

–Expects 8-10% turnout in runoff

–Dems disorganized

–There is no Democratic Party

–Alabama Dems don’t want any help

–December 12th is irrelevant–Special Election to be decided on September 26th.

2017 Special Election: Predictions & Polling in Real Terms

Click photo to view source from al.com

In the days leading up to the Alabama Special Election Primary,  We have seen predictions for everything from polling data, to voter turnout.  I wanted to take a moment to actually put those predictions into context in terms of actual votes and for whom.  Before I do, let me list a couple of predictions that I have come across over the past few days.

  1. Alabama Secretary of State, John Merrill, predicts that voter turnout will be low, a range of 20-25% of registered voters are expected to show up on August 15th.  His website stated back in November of 2016, Alabama has a total of about 3.3 million registered voters.
  2. The latest poll that I have seen has Moore at 30.7%, Strange at 22.6% and Brooks at 18.1% on the republican side.  For the democrats, data isn’t as complete.  Although that same source does have Democratic Candidate, Robert Kennedy Jr. polling at 49%  which puts him with almost enough votes to win the primary without a runoff!

These numbers, for the most part are not surprising if you have been following this race and monitoring the polling data that has been shared all along.  What hasn’t really been mentioned is what these numbers mean in terms of the expected number of votes that will be placed for each candidate.  That’s what I’ll try here.

It wasn’t until I saw Merrill’s prediction and the total number of registered voters in Alabama that I thought about putting this together.  Since I’m terrible at math, rather than using the 20-25% range, I will settle in the middle at 23%.

Based on the polling and estimated turnout:

If 23% of 3.3 million show up to vote tomorrow, that will mean a total of 759,000 people are expected to turnout statewide.

If Alabama is split (and I’m estimating this) 60/40 republicans to democrats, then that means 455,400 republicans and 303,600 democrats.  I debated with myself to put it at 65/35 but I’ll know for sure after tomorrow.

For the candidates, it’s a simple plan.

Plan A – Win the primary on August 15th.  That would mean one republican candidate would get at least 228,000 votes. For the democrats, that number is 151,800.  Not likely.

Plan B – Make it to the runoff.  This is the most likely scenario and the one that the big money is expecting as well.  Strange has millions to spend but has mostly been attacking Brooks in the ads.  Based on the polling data, here is what that looks like.  Due to availability, I am only able to estimate republicans from here on.

Roy Moore (30.7%) 139,808 estimated votes

Luther Strange (22.6%) 102,920 estimated votes

Mo Brooks (18.1%) 82,427 estimated votes

What is striking to me about this is that a mere 20,494 votes are the only things keeping Brooks from moving on to the runoff against Moore in this scenario.  That’s not a lot of votes when you consider a total 3.3 million statewide registered voters.  This also further explains why the Strange campaign and its allies have been running negative ads against Mo Brooks with far more frequency than they have against Roy Moore up until this point.  The one point that I can glean from this information is that your vote or non-vote matters tomorrow.  Even if you are voting for a candidate that I haven’t named here, and there are some really good ones, you are still affecting the outcome.  If you don’t vote at all tomorrow, which according to this should be about 77% of you, then your inaction also affects this election by keeping the turnout down.

In closing friends, I leave you with a line borrowed from the rock band Rush, “If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice”  For the rest of us, I pray we choose the path that is clear.

Steve Flowers – One Week Until the Primary

I spoke with Alabama political expert, Steve Flowers today about the special election coming up on August 15th.  Please share this on social media and like this page on Facebook for continued coverage of Alabama politics.

Two U.S. Senate Candidates Visit Republicans in Enterprise

This is the audio recorded at an event hosted tonight by the Coffee County Republican Committee.  The speakers were U.S. Senate candidates, Judge Roy Moore and Tripp Pittman.  I tried to boost the audio when members of the audience asked questions.  Otherwise, no edits have been made.


Don’t hesitate to comment below instead of commenting on social media to make sure that all viewers of this post will see it.


Judge Roy Moore Taps Former Alabama GOP Chair, Bill Armistead To Head Campaign

This is a press release verbatim from  the campaign of Judge Roy Moore for Senate.

Montgomery, AL – Today, the Roy Moore for U. S. Senate Campaign announced that former State Senator and Alabama Republican Party Chairman Bill Armistead will serve as Campaign Chairman.

Photo of Bill Armistead
Armistead to bring significant statewide grassroots and fundraising contacts to campaign effort.

“I have known Bill for over 25 years and know him to be an ethical leader of our party who consistently stands up for our shared conservative values,” said Judge Roy Moore. “As a former Chairman of the Alabama Republican Party, Bill will help us engage the real people of Alabama who are frustrated by establishment politics in Washington and want a Senator who will be their voice.”

Armistead, a resident of Shelby County, served in the Alabama State Senate for two terms from 1994 – 2002 and was the Republican nominee for Lt. Governor in 2002. He served as Chairman of the Alabama Republican Party from 2011 to 2015 during which time the Party won every statewide office including the election of Judge Moore as Chief Justice in 2012. Under Armistead’s leadership, the Party also increased its majorities in the legislature and made record gains at the local level.

“Judge Roy Moore will be the next United States Senator from Alabama, and I am proud to offer my endorsement and support. I encourage all my friends across the state to join the campaign today by visiting www.judgemooreforsenate.com or on Facebook @JudgeRoyMoore,” said Bill Armistead regarding the announcement.

Newly appointed Campaign Chairman Armistead continued, “Judge Moore has stood up for conservative values his whole career, often in the face of so-called, bi-partisan adversaries, and this campaign will be no different. The Washington establishment has made it clear that they want to hand-pick the next Senator from Alabama, but I have every confidence that voters in Alabama will stand with Judge Roy Moore on August 15th and send a proven fighter and tested outsider to Washington to shake up the status quo and support President Donald Trump in draining the swamp.”

The appointment of Bill Armistead as Campaign Chairman is the first of several Judge Roy Moore for Senate Leadership Team announcements set for the coming days and weeks.

Interview with Bryan Peeples – Candidate for U.S. Senate

Listen to the story of a young man that found himself unemployed during the economic downturn in 2008, only to work his way back as a successful business consultant today. Bryan Peeples discusses how his experiences with failure and success in the business realm make him a viable candidate for U.S. Senate. Thanks for listening, please share this on your social media and be sure to follow Deer Stand Hill on Facebook.


Campaign image for Bryan Peeples

Interview with Judge Roy Moore – Candidate for U.S. Senate

Get to know Judge Roy Moore in an interview like you rarely hear in this age of argumentative media. Hear what he has to say about his life and campaign for U.S. Senate. Be sure to like and follow Deer Stand Hill on Facebook for total campaign coverage.


Interview with Jim Zeigler – State Auditor of Alabama

Jim Zeigler talks about the ongoing lawsuit filed against Governor Bentley, his new book, “The Making of the People’s Governor 2018”, and what it would take for him to run for governor in 2018. The book is available at lulu.com. Be sure to follow Deer Stand Hill on Facebook and Twitter. Message me with your comments, topic ideas, or sponsorship inquiries. Thanks for listening!