KY-SEN: Amy McGrath in

[Calthrina950]

https://twitter.com/ChetLemond/status/1163802832077828096

At this rate, McGrath might actually lose by more than Alison Lundergan Grimes did in 2014. McConnell will almost certainly carry Elliott County for the first time in his career. She'll be lucky to do as well as Jim Gray did in 2016.

[Calthrina950]

https://twitter.com/ChetLemond/status/1163802832077828096

At this rate, McGrath might actually lose by more than Alison Lundergan Grimes did in 2014. McConnell will almost certainly carry Elliott County for the first time in his career. She'll be lucky to do as well as Jim Gray did in 2016.

Don’t tell Politician that.

And I agree. I’d be shocked if she hit 40%.

It shouldn't be a surprise if McConnell does carry Elliott County. Hal Rogers won it for the first time in his career, in a competitive race last year, and I am doubtful that even Andy Beshear can carry it against Matt Bevin this year. Elliott is only continuing to trend away from the Democrats.

[Calthrina950]

https://twitter.com/courierjournal/status/1164630332232077312

If Adkins had won the nomination over Beshear earlier this year, he would probably be on track to defeat Bevin. Against McConnell, however, it's a different story. I think Adkins would do as well as Gray did in 2016, and he would definitely win Elliott County (where he has a base, and where he did exceptionally well against Beshear and Edelen). But McConnell would still win by around 12-15 points in the end, though.

[Calthrina950]

https://twitter.com/courierjournal/status/1164630332232077312

If Adkins had won the nomination over Beshear earlier this year, he would probably be on track to defeat Bevin. Against McConnell, however, it's a different story. I think Adkins would do as well as Gray did in 2016, and he would definitely win Elliott County (where he has a base, and where he did exceptionally well against Beshear and Edelen). But McConnell would still win by around 12-15 points in the end, though.

I doubt he would win the primary against McGrath though, especially if Jones runs too.
Amy McGrath will have a small fortune to spend

This is also true, since Adkins did fall short against Beshear, and Jim Gray lost the primary to McGrath last year. It's a shame though, because Adkins and Gray both are more electable than Beshear and McGrath, for those respective races. But again, it ultimately would make little difference. Adkins would lose to McConnell maybe 56-44 or 57-43, while McGrath could very well lose 60-40 or even 62-38 against him.

[Calthrina950]

McGrath looks like a bad candidate, but McConnell will likely win by 10-25 points.

2021-27 will be his last term in office.

A Democrat can win in 2026 or 2032.

A radical partisan realignment would have to take place for this to happen. If anything, I wouldn't be surprised if McConnell is succeeded by someone like his protegee Cameron.

[Calthrina950]

McConnell is in so much trouble in KY should Bevin lose

This has to be a joke. Even if Bevin loses (which he won't), McConnell would still be absolutely safe in 2020, and McGrath hasn't done herself any favors.

[Calthrina950]

Rocky's a good soul to take a job in the admin, but this both gives up his seat and loses our best hope for Senate.

Whelp, Safe R

It was always Safe R. A McConnell demolition of McGrath is all but assured at this point, as neither Adkins nor Gray will be running for the seat.

[Calthrina950]

While no one is going to beat Mitch McConnell, I think it is better for Democrats to go with a candidate who genuinely believes in what they says and will wage a good campaign, then for someone who is a demonstrated flip-flopper and has poor campaign skills.

[Calthrina950]

Data Progress put out a poll today showing McGrath trailing McConnell by 19 points, 52-33%. It is very possible that she may do worse than Jim Gray did in 2016 against Rand Paul, when he got 43%. I don't think McGrath will sink to Hillary Clinton's lows, but a McConnell victory of say, 60-36% or something along those lines wouldn't surprise me at this juncture. I'm pretty certain, given last year's results, that McGrath will still carry Elliott County, in addition to the three (Jefferson, Fayette, Franklin) that will be carried by Biden.

[Calthrina950]

Data Progress put out a poll today showing McGrath trailing McConnell by 19 points, 52-33%. It is very possible that she may do worse than Jim Gray did in 2016 against Rand Paul, when he got 43%. I don't think McGrath will sink to Hillary Clinton's lows, but a McConnell victory of say, 60-36% or something along those lines wouldn't surprise me at this juncture. I'm pretty certain, given last year's results, that McGrath will still carry Elliott County, in addition to the three (Jefferson, Fayette, Franklin) that will be carried by Biden.

Is that a new poll or a repost of this June 13-15 survey commissioned by them and conducted by Civiqs? http://filesforprogress.org/datasets/2020/6/ky/Civiqs_DataforProgress_KY_banner_book_2020_06.pdf

You're right. It's actually the June 13-15 survey. The poll was mentioned on the front page of RRH Elections, and they described it as "new." A misleading headline, I would say. But that's still only a few weeks ago, and I can't imagine that McGrath's situation has improved since then.

[Calthrina950]

McGrath is on Morning Joe this morning. I think people here may overblow how "terrible" she is. At least in this one particular interview, she comes off pretty common sense. I think in all reality, this will probably be the closest race of Mitch's career. Out of any of the candidates, I do believe she probably has the best chance to get as close as possible.

You are extremely confident about Democratic chances, perhaps too confident. While it is clear that Biden is leading Trump by a substantial margin right now (at least on par with Obama-2008 levels) and that several Senate Republicans are in jeopardy, I think it's too much of a stretch to make such a declaration with regards to Kentucky. McConnell's closest race in his career was back in 1984, when he beat his predecessor Walter Huddleston by just 0.40%. Even in 2008, he defeated Lunsford by 5%. I expect McConnell to beat McGrath by at least low double digits, if not more. And Rocky Adkins would have been a much better candidate against McConnell than McGrath is proving to be. One "common sense" interview won't reverse the damage she inflicted on herself during the primary.

[Calthrina950]

My point is that I think people here generally overestimate how things like that matter. They may, and I could be wrong. But we are very in the weeds here and see everything that is going on. There's the chance that most of Kentuckians haven't really been paying attention to this campaign (tHAT intensely) to know McGrath's every single misstep during the primary.

You can be quite sure that they'll know by the time November comes around. McConnell is ruthless, and his campaign will exploit McGrath's missteps for as much as they are worth.

[Calthrina950]

That was a Palpatine laugh I've ever heard it

That's what I was saying! It makes sense, given that McConnell basically is Palpatine, if he were a Republican and the Senate Majority Leader. He's one of the most evil men ever to have walked within the halls of the U.S. Capitol.

[Calthrina950]

That was a Palpatine laugh I've ever heard it

That's what I was saying! It makes sense, given that McConnell basically is Palpatine, if he were a Republican and the Senate Majority Leader. He's one of the most evil men ever to have walked within the halls of the U.S. Capitol.

I don't think he's any more evil than your average Republican Senator or Representative.  He's just more shameless (maybe more honest) than the rest.

That's precisely what makes McConnell so detestable. That, and the fact that he is the Senate Majority Leader-and hence has been in the position to push the Republican agenda through and obstruct over the past dozen years.

[Calthrina950]

That was a Palpatine laugh I've ever heard it

That's what I was saying! It makes sense, given that McConnell basically is Palpatine, if he were a Republican and the Senate Majority Leader. He's one of the most evil men ever to have walked within the halls of the U.S. Capitol.

I don't think he's any more evil than your average Republican Senator or Representative.  He's just more shameless (maybe more honest) than the rest.

That's precisely what makes McConnell so detestable. That, and the fact that he is the Senate Majority Leader-and hence has been in the position to push the Republican agenda through and obstruct over the past dozen years.

I don't think he's done anything during that time that any other Senate Republican wouldn't also have done.

In fact, I'm going to play devil's advocate here and argue he's actually done some real good by making the Senate and the federal judiciary more (little-d) democratic.  He's destroyed a bunch of norms that were deeply unfair to begin with.  Why should a Republican majority confirm a liberal Supreme Court nominee?  Just because a sitting justice died on one day and not a few months later?  That's arbitrary.  Why should Republicans not use the agreed upon rules to pursue the agenda their voters sent them to Congress for?  The parties have different values and objectives, and nobody complains about partisanship in other countries' legislatures.  If Democrats want a liberal Supreme Court, they should win control of government and make one.  If they want to pass laws, they should win control of the Senate and change the rules to make that possible with their majority.  It's obscene to expect Republicans to betray their constituencies and help pass the opposition's agenda.  Nobody expects Democrats to do that.

You do have a point, and it's true that any other Republican probably would have done the same. It's just that he's been so blatant with the exercise of his power, and hasn't bothered to hide the fact that what he's doing is driven by a desire to establish the Republican Party as the nation's dominant political force down the line. But I'm not too happy about many of the precedents which have been established, and I fear that the continuation of such behavior in the future will exacerbate the polarization which has engulfed our political system.

[Calthrina950]

That was a Palpatine laugh I've ever heard it

That's what I was saying! It makes sense, given that McConnell basically is Palpatine, if he were a Republican and the Senate Majority Leader. He's one of the most evil men ever to have walked within the halls of the U.S. Capitol.

I don't think he's any more evil than your average Republican Senator or Representative.  He's just more shameless (maybe more honest) than the rest.

That's precisely what makes McConnell so detestable. That, and the fact that he is the Senate Majority Leader-and hence has been in the position to push the Republican agenda through and obstruct over the past dozen years.

I don't think he's done anything during that time that any other Senate Republican wouldn't also have done.

In fact, I'm going to play devil's advocate here and argue he's actually done some real good by making the Senate and the federal judiciary more (little-d) democratic.  He's destroyed a bunch of norms that were deeply unfair to begin with.  Why should a Republican majority confirm a liberal Supreme Court nominee?  Just because a sitting justice died on one day and not a few months later?  That's arbitrary.  Why should Republicans not use the agreed upon rules to pursue the agenda their voters sent them to Congress for?  The parties have different values and objectives, and nobody complains about partisanship in other countries' legislatures.  If Democrats want a liberal Supreme Court, they should win control of government and make one.  If they want to pass laws, they should win control of the Senate and change the rules to make that possible with their majority.  It's obscene to expect Republicans to betray their constituencies and help pass the opposition's agenda.  Nobody expects Democrats to do that.

You do have a point, and it's true that any other Republican probably would have done the same. It's just that he's been so blatant with the exercise of his power, and hasn't bothered to hide the fact that what he's doing is driven by a desire to establish the Republican Party as the nation's dominant political force down the line. But I'm not too happy about many of the precedents which have been established, and I fear that the continuation of such behavior in the future will exacerbate the polarization which has engulfed our political system.

There are a lot of reasons to criticize (even loathe) McConnell, but a desire "to establish the Republican Party as the nation's dominant political force" isn't one of them.  That's what politicians are supposed to do!  Compete for the right to govern.  The Senate's not some social club--it's a place to get things done.  "Polarization" is just socially engaged citizens organizing to pursue a shared agenda and electing representatives who will also pursue that agenda--it's the very essence of democratic politics.  McConnell had the decency to stop pretending you can separate politics from governance.

I understand that politics is a competition between parties, but McConnell has escalated our partisan warfare to new and even more intense heights. You seem to be giving him much credit here, and I'm not sure if he should receive so much of it.

[Calthrina950]

That was a Palpatine laugh I've ever heard it

That's what I was saying! It makes sense, given that McConnell basically is Palpatine, if he were a Republican and the Senate Majority Leader. He's one of the most evil men ever to have walked within the halls of the U.S. Capitol.

I don't think he's any more evil than your average Republican Senator or Representative.  He's just more shameless (maybe more honest) than the rest.

That's precisely what makes McConnell so detestable. That, and the fact that he is the Senate Majority Leader-and hence has been in the position to push the Republican agenda through and obstruct over the past dozen years.

I don't think he's done anything during that time that any other Senate Republican wouldn't also have done.

In fact, I'm going to play devil's advocate here and argue he's actually done some real good by making the Senate and the federal judiciary more (little-d) democratic.  He's destroyed a bunch of norms that were deeply unfair to begin with.  Why should a Republican majority confirm a liberal Supreme Court nominee?  Just because a sitting justice died on one day and not a few months later?  That's arbitrary.  Why should Republicans not use the agreed upon rules to pursue the agenda their voters sent them to Congress for?  The parties have different values and objectives, and nobody complains about partisanship in other countries' legislatures.  If Democrats want a liberal Supreme Court, they should win control of government and make one.  If they want to pass laws, they should win control of the Senate and change the rules to make that possible with their majority.  It's obscene to expect Republicans to betray their constituencies and help pass the opposition's agenda.  Nobody expects Democrats to do that.

The Senate is not a democratic institution by its very nature. Nice try, though.

It should be!  And what I'm arguing is that McConnell is nudging it in that direction.

" honestly guys, tearing down centuries of Senate norms and replacing even attempts at bipartisanship with knee-jerk gridlock an attempt to enforce a narrow vanity of the popular will on the large majority is not just McConnell's right, but his patriotic Duty!"

So sad that we got rid of the eye roll icon for posts like this

I don't agree with you and JDB about court-packing, but the other sentiments in this post accord with my thought, and what I was trying to say to Heebie Jeebie yesterday. I don't think a complete demolition of the Senate's prior norms will be helpful for anyone down the road, and Republicans may come to regret their moves if they find that they are in the minority, and cannot step Democratic schemes-such as court-packing and D.C. statehood-to which they are opposed.

[Calthrina950]

https://twitter.com/MediumBuying/status/1319814796389253126?s=19

Lol

I didn't even know who the Libertarian nominee in Kentucky this year was. He looks ridiculous in that screenshot.