KY-SEN: Amy McGrath in

[YE]

https://twitter.com/aoc/status/1270382200974979072?s=21

[YE]

No one is getting their hoped up, but the Southern Strategy is finally being done away with, with Confederate flags being dismantled in the South. KY, MO were Confederate boarder states and if there is a landslide Galliway and McGrath can win , if Biden wins by 8, larger than the 2008 6 or landslide Obama had

2008, McConnell won by only 10 pts 6 pts when Obama won the PVI, by 6 7.2, if its 8 50 pt PVI, McGrath will might win.

McConnell won by 20 in 2014 due to it being a midterm

That's why Bullock and Bollier have a chance in red states, partisan leans arent like midterms than in Prez elections. That's why Gross can win in AK, and Dems win a Supermajority,  Begich won in 2008

FTFY

You really should know better than to reply to OC.

[YE]

https://twitter.com/populismupdates/status/1271894682839085056?s=21

[YE]

McGrath did everything she could to lose and still won (probably) while progressives prove how ineffective they are at winning big races yet again (though tbf this wasn’t seen as competitive until a couple weeks out)...

[YE]

Looking forward to what will be on track to be the worst Democratic Senate campaign since Alvin Greene in 2010.

If that's the case here is my Question:

Will McGrath win a bigger Percentage of the Vote compared to Grimes in 2014? I think Grimes got 42 % in 2014.

McGrath won’t do significantly better than Biden if you ask me.

[YE]

McGrath did everything she could to lose and still won (probably) while progressives prove how ineffective they are at winning big races yet again (though tbf this wasn’t seen as competitive until a couple weeks out)...

I said it when McGrath was supposed to landslide in the primary, I said it when Booker had all the momentum just before the election, and I said it when folks assumed Booker probably had this once Jefferson and Fayette reported their absentee ballots.  I suppose saying it again now that McGrath has won the nomination can't hurt

This is one of the most irrelevant seriously contested primaries of the cycle and every cent that went to McGrath or Booker was as big a waste as a Republican donating to AOC's Republican opponent.  It does not matter and there isn't even a symbolic victory to be won here for either side.  Booker would've lost by 30-35% and so will McGrath.  The idea that this was some sort of remotely meaningful showdown between the establishment and the Berniecrat crowd was always a silly forced narrative.  At the end of the day, McGrath and Booker were both abysmal candidates.

Incidentally, the donor class' money-burning tendencies aren't just an establishment issue, they transcend factions/ideology (yes, there is absolutely a very real pro-Berniecrat faction of the Democratic Party's donor class).  Progressives are just as apt to get distracted by shiny objects.  It's not even clear who the establishment candidate was given that almost every establishment Dem in Kentucky endorsed Booker or sat the race out.  

Honestly, no one who donated to either Democratic candidate in this race has anything to brag about regarding this primary.  McGrath's supporters should be embarrassed by the fact that after wasting so much money on a Titanium R Senate race, their candidate barely even held on against a random left-wing backbencher state rep.   Meanwhile, we all saw the complete and utter sh!tshow that was McGrath's campaign...and Booker still couldn't win?  How is that even possible?  

TL;DR: This primary does not matter.  It never mattered.  Why were folks invested in who gets to lose to McConnell by 30-35%?  There are so many far more important races?  Even if you want to pick a Senate primary, why not focus on donating and building momentum for Romanoff?  In that primary, the winner will likely become a Senator and there are major ideological (and basic human decency) differences between the candidates.  Why are Berniecrats ignoring that race?  Why did they ignore Jessica Cisneros' primary challenge to Cuellar?  There are races they could make a real positive impact and yet we're wasting energy on the KY Senate primary?  Seriously?

At least the theory I've seen floated that progressives would have spent less on this than resistance types (and while progressives would spend money, it wouldn't be as much as they seem more obsessed, who would then turn around and donate to the races that actually matter. McGrath personally, and the DSCC recruiting her over a candidate with local backing, is basically everything I loathe about the Dems though personally, hence my annoyance, and if I lived in the state, I'd probably write in Rocky Adkins. But there's nothing wrong with what you wrote either.

[YE]

McGrath did everything she could to lose and still won (probably) while progressives prove how ineffective they are at winning big races yet again (though tbf this wasn’t seen as competitive until a couple weeks out)...

I said it when McGrath was supposed to landslide in the primary, I said it when Booker had all the momentum just before the election, and I said it when folks assumed Booker probably had this once Jefferson and Fayette reported their absentee ballots.  I suppose saying it again now that McGrath has won the nomination can't hurt

This is one of the most irrelevant seriously contested primaries of the cycle and every cent that went to McGrath or Booker was as big a waste as a Republican donating to AOC's Republican opponent.  It does not matter and there isn't even a symbolic victory to be won here for either side.  Booker would've lost by 30-35% and so will McGrath.  The idea that this was some sort of remotely meaningful showdown between the establishment and the Berniecrat crowd was always a silly forced narrative.  At the end of the day, McGrath and Booker were both abysmal candidates.

Incidentally, the donor class' money-burning tendencies aren't just an establishment issue, they transcend factions/ideology (yes, there is absolutely a very real pro-Berniecrat faction of the Democratic Party's donor class).  Progressives are just as apt to get distracted by shiny objects.  It's not even clear who the establishment candidate was given that almost every establishment Dem in Kentucky endorsed Booker or sat the race out.  

Honestly, no one who donated to either Democratic candidate in this race has anything to brag about regarding this primary.  McGrath's supporters should be embarrassed by the fact that after wasting so much money on a Titanium R Senate race, their candidate barely even held on against a random left-wing backbencher state rep.   Meanwhile, we all saw the complete and utter sh!tshow that was McGrath's campaign...and Booker still couldn't win?  How is that even possible?  

TL;DR: This primary does not matter.  It never mattered.  Why were folks invested in who gets to lose to McConnell by 30-35%?  There are so many far more important races?  Even if you want to pick a Senate primary, why not focus on donating and building momentum for Romanoff?  In that primary, the winner will likely become a Senator and there are major ideological (and basic human decency) differences between the candidates.  Why are Berniecrats ignoring that race?  Why did they ignore Jessica Cisneros' primary challenge to Cuellar?  There are races they could make a real positive impact and yet we're wasting energy on the KY Senate primary?  Seriously?

At least the theory I've seen floated that progressives would have spent less on this than resistance types (and while progressives would spend money, it wouldn't be as much as they seem more obsessed, who would then turn around and donate to the races that actually matter. McGrath personally, and the DSCC recruiting her over a candidate with local backing, is basically everything I loathe about the Dems though personally, hence my annoyance, and if I lived in the state, I'd probably write in Rocky Adkins. But there's nothing wrong with what you wrote either.

If I lived in Kentucky, I'd have voted for Booker in the primary   But I do think the Berniecrats would've probably made the GE one of their top priority races of the cycle if Booker got nominated and would've wasted just as much money here as the professional donor class did on McGrath.  I'll admit that I'm still a bit bitter about how the Berniecrats have likely blown the CO Senate primary and probably blew our last best chance of taking out longtime DINO Henry Cuellar (who probably has enough pull with Republicans to be protected come redistricting), but I'm not really convinced the Berniecrats are any smarter than the professional donor class about this stuff (look at AOC's fundraising totals and then tell me Berniecrats can't burn money as well as anyone ). 

I don't disagree with you about McGrath, but remember, Booker didn't really have any local backing until the end.  He was basically a some dude tier candidate until the last minute.

Neither are clearly great though it depends on how you look at it. Progressives seem more obsessed with going after bad Dem incumbents (even if they are safe) than blowing money on McConnell (or hell people like Gosar and Gohmert), though the former is moot at this point in the primary cycle. I do think  there would have been some effort but probably at least slightly less than with resistance types had McGrath won.

Also, Cuellar only barely won and was heavily targeted by all major progressive groups.  CO-SEN is more of a disappointment but I also find Romanoff quite underwhelming. If only Duran had actually run... Of course, there are other examples of the left dropping the ball (failure to fully target Maloney, both Delaware Senators, or Menendez just to name a few)

[YE]

Unless there is a poll that comes out showing McGrath leading McConnell, Graham, Marshall, Cornyn, and Daines, Dems have been way too optimistic about a 60 seat majority. We thought Ds were gonna win 60 seats when Biden was at peak polling in summertime at 15 points and Trump approvals went from 39 to 47 percent

Who is talking about 60 seat majorities lol

Killing the filibuster is getting a ton of play precisely because no one believes a 60 seat majority is even remotely plausible.

There was a stretch of about a week earlier in the summer where OC would talk about how this race would be like 2008 and we’d end up with 60 seats. Then he reverted back to thinking everyone on the forum was too bullish on D’s.