Harrison and McGrath lead April's ActBlue donations

[Alben Barkley]

It’ll be a lot of fun seeing Daines, Perdue, and Tillis very narrowly win and Republicans hold the Senate so that McGrath can lose by 18 (instead of 21) and Harrison by 12 (instead of 15.)

In 2016, Rand Paul won by 14 and in 2014, McConnell won by 15. I highly doubt McGrath will lose by more than that. Probably about the same as those races, maybe slightly better.

Actually, almost certainly slightly better because I expect the entire nation to be a more D favorable climate, Kentucky included. I don’t think Trump will win by quite as much as 2016, and McGrath will still outperform Biden. Won’t win, but don’t be TOO shocked if she only loses by mid-high single digits. That’s how much Mitch won by in 2008, after all.

[Alben Barkley]

It’ll be a lot of fun seeing Daines, Perdue, and Tillis very narrowly win and Republicans hold the Senate so that McGrath can lose by 18 (instead of 21) and Harrison by 12 (instead of 15.)

In 2016, Rand Paul won by 14 and in 2014, McConnell won by 15. I highly doubt McGrath will lose by more than that. Probably about the same as those races, maybe slightly better.

Why did Paul underperform Trump so much in 2016? Of the 22 Republican Senate incumbents, he and Blunt (who was facing a superstar challenger) were the only ones to do so.

Neither of Kentucky’s senators are very popular. In fact both routinely rank towards the bottom when Senate approval ratings are polled. Jim Gray was a fairly strong candidate, too, being the popular mayor of Lexington; he won KY-06 (Lexington district) even as Trump and Barr won it fairly easily. Trump just had more appeal to the ancestral Democrats in the coal country as well; we all know Elliot County famously swung big time for Trump, but still they voted for Gray over Paul.

[Alben Barkley]

Out of these two, only Harrison even has a snowball's chance in Hell odds to actually win. The McGrifter money would be better used as bribe payments for Mitch McConnell at this point.

Are we sure about that? NONE of Lindsey’s wins have been as close as a few of Mitch’s wins have been. And he isn’t consistently ranked as one of the most unpopular, if not the most unpopular, senators in the country either. I would not be at all surprised if he ends up winning by more than Mitch, just as he did last time.

People here keep “misunderestimating” Kentucky. I literally joined this site originally just to counter the circlejerk of “Bevin is inevitable” and lo and behold, look who turned out to be right. People here just don’t get KY politics, which I empathize with because they are weird to say the least. But what you have to understand is that there is still a fairly sizable bloc of voters in this state who would never vote D for president, but would happily vote for one for other offices, including senator (as we saw in 2016, when Rand Paul badly underperformed Trump) and especially governor. An office which no R governor in HISTORY has ever been re-elected to.

It’s not like SC where the electorate has essentially been polarized by race for decades. There is a relatively elastic group of voters here, most of whom are still registered Democrats. They got Beshear elected, and if Elliot County native Rocky Adkins (who is beloved by these types and resembles Manchin in several ways) was the nominee? Well I’d probably have this race as a toss-up.

[Alben Barkley]

McGrath probably would have been better suited trying to run against Barr again, but she can win in Kentucky, because McConnell is just so unpopular nationally, and in state.

I'd tie him to Bevin (since tying him to Trump probably won't work as well.) if I were running her campaign.

I don't think donating to Harrison is lighting money on fire (he's got a better chance to win than Doug Jones), but he's a heavy underdog against Lindsey Graham, and he's less likely to win than McGrath is.

McGrath’s problem is that she is incredibly, transparently wishy-washy and flip-floppity. Right out of the gate she contradicted herself on the Kavanaugh vote. She’s repeatedly contradicted herself on Trump since then. She won’t energize liberals, she won’t do enough to win over Trump voters, she won’t unify Kentuckians the way Beshear did, and she won’t play as well in coal country as Adkins would have. Basically she is the worst of all worlds.

I actually think she is a weaker nominee than McConnell’s last challenger, Allison Grimes, was. I really do not get why Schumer thought someone who lost one of the most winnable swing districts of 2018 — a district that Jim Gray won handily in 2016, that Beshear won by double digits in 2019, and that polls show Biden is winning by double digits as well this year — was such a great candidate. She already proved she was not a great candidate against Barr; if she hadn’t edged him out in the primaries, Jim Gray (who I voted for) would probably be my representative right now. Amy’s campaign (which relied on a “high ground” strategy) was just abysmal in 2018, and despite the strong fundraising I don’t see much sign she’s improved since then. If she learned anything from last time, she might well have had a better shot in a repeat against Barr (who she almost beat despite the terrible campaign), but then again I see little sign she has learned anything.

I really, REALLY wish it had been Adkins. From what I have heard from people in the know, he had personal reasons not to run. But it’s still a shame. Because Amy simply ain’t gonna win. The more “progressive” candidates running against her won’t either. At this point I don’t really care which it is because all are doomed, but at least the other two seem more principled than Amy.