KY-SEN: Amy McGrath in

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Discuss with maps:
Kelly Loeffler vs. Amy McGrath. You pick the running mates.

Karen Handel and Liberal Obama Mimes are the running-mates.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

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?

McGrath comes off so emotionless and sterile. At least Booker would've put up a fight and increased downballot turnout.

I'll take weird sexist non-sequiturs for $100, Alex!

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

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.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

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)

Fair, but Chris Coons should get a lifetime pass.  He ran for this seat when every other Democrat in Delaware was ready to just give it away to the Republicans without a fight so Mike Castle could become Susan Collins 2.0.  He was a rising star who really put his political career on the line (everyone thought he was out of his mind at the time (everyone had this as Titanium R when Coons got in and thought that Castle was a lock to win by 15-20% in the GE) and there's something to be said for that.  Sure, he got lucky, but no one could've foreseen Christine O'Donnell upsetting the most popular politician in Delaware not named "Joe Biden" in the Republican primary.

Honestly, I don't like the idea of a random some dude primarying Coons now that it's a safe Democratic district just because he's slightly less progressive than you or I would like, especially when Coons has been a perfectly fine Senator and fits the state he represents pretty well.

Now, Carper OTOH is a domestic abuser and more economically center-right than one can chalk up to "well, it's Delaware being Delaware," so he should have been primaried by now.  I don't see anything wrong with Coons though.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Between this and the Hickenlooper thing, words cannot describe my disgust with the DSCC right now. These people essentially bought a nomination for the most incompetent major candidate I've seen in my lifetime. There's disasters, there's Bruce Braley, and then there's whatever the **** this was. A Green New Deal isn't going to go over well in Kentucky, but cosmic-brain takes about how Mitch McConnell is Actually Not Helping Trump like McGrath would sure as hell won't either. Most importantly, Amy McGrath, and the DSCC (drunk on greed) forgot the first rule of politics: all politics is local.

I actually don't have an issue with a conservative strategy. You don't see me calling to primary Colin Peterson or Jared Golden, or backing Paula Jean Swearengin against Joe Manchin. Joe Manchin is a conservative, Trump-compromising Democrat. Normal logic would be to look at his strong grassroots presence, his long ties to the state, and his track record of winning campaigns, and to try to find a candidate with similar traits. And the sad thing is, we had one in our grasp.

Of course, this is the Democratic Party we're talking about. Democratic Party logic would be to crown a candidate the moment they announced because of how much money they raised, regardless of their ties to the state or their grassroots support. Regardless of their previous stances, they would act like a dollar store knockoff of Joe Manchin. After all, Joe Manchin is well-liked because he's a bipartisan Democrat.

The DC establishment had sent DC consultants to "power" a woman who moved from the DC metro to run for Congress's Senate run. The DC establishment, with the help low-information NPCs who Just Want To See Moscow Mitch Go Down, bought McGrath the nomination. It's especially sad for me, considering one of my political heroes is my former representative who rose to power in a similar way Booker's campaign did. It's safe to say that between Citizens United and social media giving the average American an investment in politics, the next Carol Shea-Porter couldn't rise up nowadays.

If you want to know why I don't identify strongly with the Democrats, it's things like this. I'm in a very strange place where I'm more attached to Biden himself than I am the party. You have a significant amount of the party who, for lack of a better word, thinks I should f*** off and join the Russians because I liked Bernie more than I did Hillary 4 years ago. You have an establishment that's obsessed with keeping the gravy train flowing to the point where they'll pick winners and losers, even if everything shows the "winner" as comically incompetent or is a Republican on environmental policy. You had a future progressive star in your grasp - dare I say, someone who had Presidential material written all over him - and these sons of bitches pissed it away for green pieces of paper.

Booker was an abysmal candidate in his own right; he had “random sacrificial lamb with no future” written all over him.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Between this and the Hickenlooper thing, words cannot describe my disgust with the DSCC right now. These people essentially bought a nomination for the most incompetent major candidate I've seen in my lifetime. There's disasters, there's Bruce Braley, and then there's whatever the **** this was. A Green New Deal isn't going to go over well in Kentucky, but cosmic-brain takes about how Mitch McConnell is Actually Not Helping Trump like McGrath would sure as hell won't either. Most importantly, Amy McGrath, and the DSCC (drunk on greed) forgot the first rule of politics: all politics is local.

I actually don't have an issue with a conservative strategy. You don't see me calling to primary Colin Peterson or Jared Golden, or backing Paula Jean Swearengin against Joe Manchin. Joe Manchin is a conservative, Trump-compromising Democrat. Normal logic would be to look at his strong grassroots presence, his long ties to the state, and his track record of winning campaigns, and to try to find a candidate with similar traits. And the sad thing is, we had one in our grasp.

Of course, this is the Democratic Party we're talking about. Democratic Party logic would be to crown a candidate the moment they announced because of how much money they raised, regardless of their ties to the state or their grassroots support. Regardless of their previous stances, they would act like a dollar store knockoff of Joe Manchin. After all, Joe Manchin is well-liked because he's a bipartisan Democrat.

The DC establishment had sent DC consultants to "power" a woman who moved from the DC metro to run for Congress's Senate run. The DC establishment, with the help low-information NPCs who Just Want To See Moscow Mitch Go Down, bought McGrath the nomination. It's especially sad for me, considering one of my political heroes is my former representative who rose to power in a similar way Booker's campaign did. It's safe to say that between Citizens United and social media giving the average American an investment in politics, the next Carol Shea-Porter couldn't rise up nowadays.

If you want to know why I don't identify strongly with the Democrats, it's things like this. I'm in a very strange place where I'm more attached to Biden himself than I am the party. You have a significant amount of the party who, for lack of a better word, thinks I should f*** off and join the Russians because I liked Bernie more than I did Hillary 4 years ago. You have an establishment that's obsessed with keeping the gravy train flowing to the point where they'll pick winners and losers, even if everything shows the "winner" as comically incompetent or is a Republican on environmental policy. You had a future progressive star in your grasp - dare I say, someone who had Presidential material written all over him - and these sons of bitches pissed it away for green pieces of paper.

Booker was an abysmal candidate in his own right; he had “random sacrificial lamb with no future” written all over him.

Booker was doomed against McConnell but his late surge means he might well have a political future as he'll become the "one who got away" to too many within the "Kentucky is a tossup, we can beat Moscow Mitch" crowd (narrowly lost primaries do less for one's fundraising future than narrowly lost GEs tend to, but they're still usually better than nothing). If he's smart and wants a political future, he'll use that energy for other offices that are winnable within this political generation (and one can never rule out KY eventually trending Dem; most current trends aren't forever): he could take up a job in the Beshear admin, run for a statewide/municipal role or go for John Yarmuth's district if/when he retires.

He'd lose by 20-30% in almost any statewide race.  The "KY is a tossup, we can beat Moscow Mitch" crowd are McGrath's fundraising base and most of them aren't even from Kentucky.  Booker is not some sort of dynamic rising star who happened to get screwed over for reasons that weren't even his fault.*  If anything, someone foolish enough to believe KY isn't titanium Safe R will probably be foolish enough to believe Booker's primary campaign somehow cost McGrath the election

Until 1-2 weeks before the primary, Booker was a random backbencher AA State Rep. whom no one saw as anything more than a borderline some-dude level D-list also-ran.  For some inexplicable reason, the Berniecrats randomly started obsessing over this meaningless primary** and inexplicably decided that random backbencher State Rep. #408,938,098,255 is a political wunderkind with future President written all over him...you know, after he loses to McConnell by 35%. 

Now what Booker could do is try to take a greater leadership role in the legislature's Democratic minority.  I'd have voted for him if I lived in KY, no question.  You make a good point about Booker running to replace Yarmuth whenever the latter retires (which could be during the next decade), although I maintain Booker is pretty overhyped.  In any case, my issue is more with folks who act like he's the greatest thing since sliced bread and focused on this instead of the CO Senate primary (b/c Prickenlooper is the worst).

*I know you're not gonna like this, but whatever you think of Buttigeig, he's the only candidate this cycle whom one could really argue was an example of a rising star getting taken down by stuff that largely wasn't their fault.  Obviously, he's not a Berniecrat, but that's beside the point.

**I mean, even if he won the primary, are you really telling me you think defeating Amy McGrath in a primary no one except the Berniecrats cares about is a symbolic victory?  I mean, you can declare victory and leave, but it'd be like me saying Steny Hoyer winning renomination was a crushing blow from which Berniecrats may never fully recover.  You call a horse a lobster until you're blue in the face, but it's still a horse.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Tonight's debate.

https://twitter.com/donmoyn/status/1315810457110958081

Gross, although McGrath is a lousy debater