As All Tell pointed out, the strategy for McConnell is pretty straightforward: say "Obama" and "Grimes" in the same sentence as many times as possible per hour for the next 18 months. Unless something significant happens, it's shaping up to be a rough midterm for Democrats all around.

 

How does she separate herself from a President that's clearly unpopular in this state? First and foremost, she place herself squarely in the corner of Kentucky's coal industry and get herself aligned with what's left of the UMWA. Not because it's politically expedient but because it's the right thing to do. Kentucky has a wealth of coal providing relatively cheap energy to the whole state. We're also not a very rich state and given the state of things, making poor and working people's energy bills go up is not something I'm prepared to do right now.

 

Grimes' strategy has to be a lot more subtle and has far more risk than McConnell's. As Randy said above, she's going to have to raise some serious money and as long as she plays things right, the national party will be squarely behind her. The pitfall is that the national party is going to want her to take hold of some positions that are not going to play well in Kentucky. So, if she plays it more conservative than the national party likes (because she likely is at least somewhat more conservative than the national party as a whole) then the question is whether they'll keep throwing money at her despite taking some positions they don't like. If she gets some momentum early then the Democrats' desire to take down McConnell could keep the big-donor money flowing no matter what she might say.

 

As for attacking McConnell, I'd play that "single most important thing we can achieve is to make Obama a one-term president" clip several times. You paint him as a party hack who doesn't have the best interests of Kentucky and the United States in mind but as a guy who's looking out for Mitch McConnell. You hammer him for playing partisan instead of leading and repeat over and over again that there's a reason he's Senate Minority Leader and not Majority Leader: he and his party used their time in control of the Senate to benefit themselves at the expense of Kentucky and the United States as a whole. I leave it to researchers and people better at this sort of thing to come up with examples and soundbites.

 

This race isn't impossible for Grimes, but it's certainly a tough row to hoe.

Mitch just left our plant. He did well. I like the fella. He gave good anwers to the questions posed to him. I was able to ask him a question about brining manufacturing jobs to Kentucky and I was pleased with his answer. He gave pause when he mentioned 'right to work' as a reason why Texas is seeing a population boom which added 4 congressional seats to the state of Texas but other than that he and I share some of the same views and thoughts.

Mitch just left our plant. He did well. I like the fella. He gave good anwers to the questions posed to him. I was able to ask him a question about brining manufacturing jobs to Kentucky and I was pleased with his answer. He gave pause when he mentioned 'right to work' as a reason why Texas is seeing a population boom which added 4 congressional seats to the state of Texas but other than that he and I share some of the same views and thoughts.

So, Mitch has PP92's vote? :wacky:

For me, it's the old devil you know. Change, without a clear vision of a benefit (which I don't see here) more often becomes negative than positive. To elect an inexperienced puppet of the Democratic party in an office (hmmm sounds like the President) because advertising and media have targeted a politician who hasn't complied with their agenda would be a bad decision IMO. Lastly, one person/party giving in isn't a compromise...it is caving. I respect the fact that Mitch hasn't caved to anyone and is sticking with the agenda of most of the people who elected him. Do I personally agree with ALL of those...no, but I still respect his position.

Think about all of the Congressmen/women and Senators across the country that each side deride. But they continue to get re-elected by their constituents to the dismay of many around the country.

 

Here is a question for everyone:

 

Should this election be about what is better for the country or Kentucky?

 

The US Senator is elected by the state to represent that state in Washington as a member of the US Senate. Should we vote on who has/will do more for Kentucky or who will go over better nationally?

Think about all of the Congressmen/women and Senators across the country that each side deride. But they continue to get re-elected by their constituents to the dismay of many around the country.

 

A few years ago some group decided to poll Americans on the view of Congress as a whole and also their Senators and Congressmen/women specifically. People's view of congress as a whole was considerably lower than thei specific representatives. That would explain why they keep getting reelected despite congress as a whole having such low approval ratings.

 

 

Here is a question for everyone:

 

Should this election be about what is better for the country or Kentucky?

 

The US Senator is elected by the state to represent that state in Washington as a member of the US Senate. Should we vote on who has/will do more for Kentucky or who will go over better nationally?

 

Well, theoretically a representative is supposed to represent the views of their constituents but you would hope they also keep in mind the good of the nation as a whole. This condrum could certainly put a representative in a bind.

It really annoys me how she refers to herself in third person constantly.

So, Mitch has PP92's vote? :wacky:

 

He has more of a chance to get it now than he did a week ago.

It really annoys me how she refers to herself in third person constantly.

 

PP92 loves when people refer to themselves in the third person and PP92 really doesn't know why he likes it so much either.