KY-SEN: Amy McGrath in

[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.

[SWE]

Likely R -> Safe R

[ON Progressive]

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.

Yeah, I think the Demosaur vote is dead federally. It's still probably a thing in state races (after all, Beshear won plenty) but doubt it for a Senate race.

[😥]

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

Likely R -> Safe R

[Horus]

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

[Alben Barkley]

Likely R -> Safe R

LOL no.

Safe R -> Safe R

[Xing]

Well, at least Booker made it respectable. Either way, back to watching #resistance mommies light millions on fire to allow McGrath to lose by 18 instead of 21, while Collins, Daines, Perdue, and Tillis all win by less than 2%. Fun.

[Alben Barkley]

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

What evidence are you getting the idea that Booker would have increased downballot turnout from? Where would he have done that? Clearly McGrath does better in just about all of the state except Louisville and Lexington, which are already the most Democratic parts of the state and will probably just trend more that way this year anyway. Not saying much, but at the end of the day the differences between these two candidates' performance in the general would likely be marginal as their strengths and weaknesses would more or less offset each other. Neither is a good candidate for Kentucky at all. Adkins or even Jones would have been much better.

But still, McGrath will probably do slightly better than Booker would have simply due to the fact that a black left-wing progressive who supports the Green New Deal would have been pulverized in Eastern Kentucky to a much greater extent. McGrath at least might hold on to Elliot County and others in the region that have never voted for McConnell. Booker might have lost even those, even if his margins in Fayette/Jefferson may have been slightly larger.

[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!

[free my dawg]

Cannot wait until the #Resistance NPCs flood her with donations so she can lose by 20 instead of Gideon.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Well, at least Booker made it respectable. Either way, back to watching #resistance mommies light millions on fire to allow McGrath to lose by 18 instead of 21, while Collins, Daines, Perdue, and Tillis all win by less than 2%. Fun.

Not arguing that people who donate in this race are putting their money on fire, but it's not like Gideon, Bullock, Ossoff, or Cunningham are hurting for money. They too have raised millions and I have no doubt they'll raise even more as November comes closer.

[Horus]

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!

Sterile as in she has no personality and seems drained of humanity. Like she was created in a lab. Not everything is sexism.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

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

McGrath's a terrible candidate when not considering $ but the fundraising is a mitigating factor even if it hurts senate races elsewhere. I can think of worse campaigns in serious races (IA-SEN 2014, for instance).

[Minnesota Mike]

It's F@#$ing  Kentucky, McConnell is going win easily in November regardless but maybe McGrath can tie him down some with her money.  Long term if want to compete in states like Kentucky you need a big enough tent to fit in moderate Democrats.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

It's F@#$ing  Kentucky, McConnell is going win easily in November regardless but maybe McGrath can tie him down some with her money.  Long term if want to compete in states like Kentucky you need a big enough tent to fit in moderate Democrats.

Booker's tent was big enough for the endorsement of prominent Kentuckian moderate Democrats. He would also have lost the General Election, but McGrath couldn't even get them on board.

[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.

[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.

[anthonyjg]

Honestly, as someone whose family runs ten generations deep in Magoffin County, this is one of the most inspiring results I've seen for the progressive movement. I have admittedly gotten sick of progressive's habit of only winning "moral victories," but if there is such a thing, this is certainly one.

Looking through the results I think that if Booker was from Lexington/east of it, or if this wasn't an election that had been wrapped up early because of mail-in voting, he would have won fairly easily. McGrath's campaign will be insufferable, but having seen the labor and environmentalist movement in Appalachia been cast aside for years, it's pretty inspiring to see the success of people like Booker and Swearengin, even if they won't end up in office. After years in the dark I think Appalachia is going to finally have an organized and vocal (and maybe even somewhat effective!) opposition party.

[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)

[walleye26]

My question here is how many counties will McGrath win come November? I honestly only think 5-10; she will win Fayette and Jefferson, but after that I would guess Franklin, Elliot, Wolfe, Bath, and Rowan; maybe in a stretch she might pick up Campbell or Boone or something.

[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.

[BudgieForce]

Yeah, I concur that neither candidate would have made this race competitive. Although a Booker win would have kept the progressive left satiated.

Edit: I don't mean that in a disrespectful way, I just mean that they are hungry for primary wins.

[BudgieForce]

https://twitter.com/joesonka/status/1278080123569352704

Booker has conceded.  A class act all around. I'm sure he's the favorite for the nomination in 2022 against Rand.

[NOVA Green]

Bit late to the party... time zone differences, plus having to work remotely and just recently logged onto Atlas....

Shame about Booker, but I suspect we'll be seeing him in the future within KY politics at a high level election...

Do we know how many KY mail in ballots were chucked because they didn't have signatures on the outside envelope or were post-marked or received after KY SoS deadlines?

Pretty sure I read an article on this from a local newspaper (Louisville?) and it seemed like there was a significant quantity of invalid mail in ballots....

Not sure this would have flipped the election here, but wouldn't be surprised if it caused a bit of an impact.

Additionally, it speaks to some of the challenges educating voters about VbM this coming November, many of whom are unused to the rules regarding mail in ballots.... (Obviously in Oregon we've been dealing with since the beginning as the first state to go all VbM, so generally most voters are pretty savvy about *how* to make sure one's ballot gets counted, and can even track the status online, etc....

[BudgieForce]

Bit late to the party... time zone differences, plus having to work remotely and just recently logged onto Atlas....

Shame about Booker, but I suspect we'll be seeing him in the future within KY politics at a high level election...

Do we know how many KY mail in ballots were chucked because they didn't have signatures on the outside envelope or were post-marked or received after KY SoS deadlines?

Pretty sure I read an article on this from a local newspaper (Louisville?) and it seemed like there was a significant quantity of invalid mail in ballots....

Not sure this would have flipped the election here, but wouldn't be surprised if it caused a bit of an impact.

Additionally, it speaks to some of the challenges educating voters about VbM this coming November, many of whom are unused to the rules regarding mail in ballots.... (Obviously in Oregon we've been dealing with since the beginning as the first state to go all VbM, so generally most voters are pretty savvy about *how* to make sure one's ballot gets counted, and can even track the status online, etc....

Twitter keeps repeating a 6,000 figure for the amount of tossed ballots. McGrath is ahead by about 15,000 votes so I'm not sure it would change the outcome. That's also assuming all ballots would have gone to Booker, although I suspect a majority would.