Red Herring/Strawman/Avoiding the Issue?

Person A posts multiple recent Alabama polls showing that Roy Moore has rebounded from polls showing him behind a few weeks ago.
Person B responds: Party before country...or decency.
Person A replies: I didn't know we were talking about Al Franken...

I realize Person B's response is an ad hominum attack against the GOP from the outset, but is the response from Person A a red herring or Strawman?

That's very much so a red herring. Where did Al Franken prop up lol?

It's misleading and missing the point.

Logical Form:

Argument A is presented by person 1.
Person 2 introduces argument B.
Argument A is abandoned.

This isn't a strawman though, because nothing here is being misrepresented or distorted.

There are no fallacies here. This is simply meme-like banter or You-Tube level comments that are not even an attempt at a rational argument.

There has to be a train of thought to call fallacy on.
If person A says....
Roy Moores numbers are recovering from scandal. So Moore will probably be the rep pick becasuse the scandal isnt proven.
Person B. Then repeats that premise and adds a conclusion that people care more about party than ethics and that is why Moore is having increased numbers.
Person A then says ...well the Dems are just as dismissive on Ethics..i.e..Al Franken...
You can assume what each persons premise and conclusions are in what they are arguing but you didnt present them in a form which shows a train of reasoning so no fallacies. Dr. Bos' post addresses what you post not what the arguments might actually be from each person.
We could add in certain ideas that each person is arguing and it would seem likely that B uses a red herring. But if the subject was ethical behavior and how the parties respond then mentioning Franken could be relevant subject matter. There has to be more specifics in the way you ask the question for Dr. Bo to determine where a fallacy might be if Im understanding this convo correctly.

Original Post:

“Person A posts multiple recent Alabama polls showing that Roy Moore has rebounded from polls showing him behind a few weeks ago.
Person B responds: Party before country...or decency.
Person A replies: I didn't know we were talking about Al Franken...”

So, let’s parse this:

Person ‘A’ sites several presumably accurate polls that show Ray Moore is gaining in Senate race. (Let’s accept this as given, with possible reservation that other polls may possibly disagree.)

Person ‘B’ observes/ concludes from this polls’ change that Political Party priorities (presumably) outweigh other factors that should benefit our Country i.e., ‘decency”. Note: this is important, as Person ‘B’ is stating an opinion (only).

Person C’s (arguably snarky) retort: “I didn't know we were talking about Al Franken...”

IMOP, this can be taken in either of three ways, depending on the (unknown) mindset of Person C:

1. (Implicitly) Person C refutes Person B’s opinion…i.e., the absence of a comparable Democratic Party urge-to-resign message foisted upon Franken, as levied by many Republicans on Moore, signals that person Person C wholly refutes Person B’s argument that ‘Party’ considerations outweigh narrower /ethics/gender issues, and then attempts to bring something extraneous (Franken’s conduct) into the picture.
In this case, Bo’s Lexicon of the ‘Red Herring’ Logical Fallacy delivers a coup de grace: “……the red herring is a deliberate diversion of attention with the intention of trying to abandon the original argument…” QED, this reading would then certainly qualify as a “Red Herring” fallacy.

2. Person C considers Person B’s opinion to be invalid, and believes that Al Franken constitutes a more egregious example & invokes it to discredit the argument (since the level of outrage thus far is less.) (Note: the ‘snark’ factor weighs in heavily here.) In this reading we have a likely Tuo Quo Quoi argument/ fallacy, since one instance of alleged misconduct is used to allay results attributed to another.

3. Person C considers Person B’s argument to be entirely valid, and simply wishes to cite Franken as a more egregious example, for (presumably) political purposes. This then is simply an opinion, to which we may agree or disagree, and there is no fallacy present.

This seemingly innocuous little problem illustrates both possible non exclusivity of logical fallacies, as well as the need to glean insight into the mindset of key players to form definitive conclusions

As Person B's reply to Person A's comment is a possible (and viable) explanation for the polling trend, and does not impugn Person A, I don't see that Person B's response is ad hominem. Person A's reply to Person B's comment is, however, literally a tu quoque response.

@Rich McMahon:

Person ‘B’ observes/ concludes from this polls’ change that Political Party priorities (presumably) outweigh other factors that should benefit our Country i.e., ‘decency”. Note: this is important, as Person ‘B’ is stating an opinion (only).

This is not a matter of opinion only-- though Person B fails to cite any evidence. There is plenty of evidence confirming this, provided by Alabama voters themselves. The GOP's decision to fund Moore's campaign and Republican walking-back of previous criticism of Moore after Trump endorsed him (both subsequent to the posting of the question) are further evidence. Even a Republican noticed; Jeff Flake (R-AZ) responded to this evidence by writing a $100 check to Doug Jones's campaign, with "Country over Party" in the memo.

Opinion or not, Person B's response to Person A is germane to Person A's comment, as it it on topic and offers a possible explanation of the polling trend cited by Person A apparently with no additional comment. It is arguable-- and I would love to have seen Person A offer an explanation other than the one offered by Person B-- but Person A deflected and resorted to dragging out a red herring instead of responding to the topic at hand.

False analogy fallacy: one politician was endorsed by the President and continued his activities, while the other was shunned by his party and resigned.

Yeah, definitely going with Tu Quoque fallacy (you too)