Just out of curiosity, why would one want Democrats in office locally, but not nationally? Or vice versa....

 

What Papa described is understood by most voters in more rural counties--that a lot of registered Democrats are really Republicans. And I just don't get that. Why would you register with a party that you generally vote against?

What Papa described is understood by most voters in more rural counties--that a lot of registered Democrats are really Republicans. And I just don't get that. Why would you register with a party that you generally vote against?

 

Don't know. I can't do it.

I think the story of how well McConnell did against Biven was the highlight but across the board, the more traditional GOP'ers did well against Tea Partiers.

 

The Tea Party did not fair well last night across the nation. IMO - that is good news for Republicans this fall.

Just out of curiosity, why would one want Democrats in office locally, but not nationally? Or vice versa....

 

Party affiliation means much less locally, comes more into play on the state and national level.

To the original question, I don't think it has much impact. What was true on Tuesday morning was still true this morning.

 

Grimes will still have to distance herself from Obama while at the same time proving she's better for Kentucky & the nation than Mitch. And Mitch will still have to overcome the incumbency factor & the fact that a lot of Kentuckians believe it's time that he be shown the door.

My parents are both registered Democrats. I know for a fact that there's NO WAY that Getslow' date=' Sr. would ever vote Democrat in a US Senate general election. It's fairly common in Kentucky, I'd imagine.[/quote']This. Whole counties in KY are like this, it's why D's greatly outnumber R's in registration numbers but for national offices the D's are routinely thumped in KY.

What Papa described is understood by most voters in more rural counties--that a lot of registered Democrats are really Republicans. And I just don't get that. Why would you register with a party that you generally vote against?

Because nobody is going to buck the trend...

What Papa described is understood by most voters in more rural counties--that a lot of registered Democrats are really Republicans. And I just don't get that. Why would you register with a party that you generally vote against?

 

I think many Democrats in KY but outside of Louisville and Lexington are your old school somewhat conservative Southern Democrats. These type of democrats are fairly dissimilar to "modern, progressive" democrats such as John Yarmuth. I have been told some of these old school democrats refuse to switch to Repubs because the still have a bad taste in their mouth from how they feel the GOP treated KY during the reconstruction. Talk about not being able to let go LOL.

Just out of curiosity, why would one want Democrats in office locally, but not nationally? Or vice versa....

 

Because local offices and those running for them are not driven by ideology in most cases. You either like them or you do not and party is of less concern.

 

At the national level the DNC and 'Progressives' clearly have agendas that are a concern. Since the concept of a Federal government with only enumerated responsibilties has gone by the way-side voting for those who would partner with others in expanding the role of government and more importantly, the power of government is hard to do.

 

Kentucky Democrats are rarely the ring leader of the totalitarian agenda that others like Chuck Shumer want. But they have to play the game with their own party.

 

Was Ben Chandler a ideologue who wanted a omnipotent federal government? Probably not. Is ALG? Maybe not. Is Yarmuth? ....

 

Chandler clearly had to clear his votes with Pelosi. He got a pass on ACA, but not on coal. He had to dance to her tune.

For the likely Majority Leader of the Senate to give up 36 percent of Republican voters was a poor showing, IMO. If McConnell loses, then he will have only himself to blame. Conservatives across the country are angry at McConnell and Boehner for their poor performance.

 

Grimes is totally unqualified but if McConnell manages to retain his seat, it is going to cost him a fortune.

For the likely Majority Leader of the Senate to give up 36 percent of Republican voters was a poor showing.

 

I would not call winning 60% to 35% to a candidate who put up a pretty good campaign a poor showing. Looks fairly dominant to me.

 

Something that is interesting, ALG had NO real competition yet didn't get almost a quarter of the votes. I would say that is what really stands out. If you have no competition, you would think you would get atleast 85% of the vote if not 90%. Not saying Mitch has a cake walk in his future but, I would have to believe he went to bed last night feeling pretty good.

Chandler clearly had to clear his votes with Pelosi. He got a pass on ACA, but not on coal. He had to dance to her tune.

 

Curious about Chandler and coal. Did he vote against Pelosi on coal bills and she pulled Democratic support costing him reelection or he voted with Pelosi on coal bills and KY voters got ticked off and that cost him reelection?

I would not call winning 60% to 35% to a candidate who put up a pretty good campaign a poor showing. Looks fairly dominant to me.

 

Something that is interesting, ALG had NO real competition yet didn't get almost a quarter of the votes. I would say that is what really stands out. If you have no competition, you would think you would get atleast 85% of the vote if not 90%. Not saying Mitch has a cake walk in his future but, I would have to believe he went to bed last night feeling pretty good.

McConnell is already in position to send a lot of pork Kentucky's way and if the GOP wins control of the Senate, his clout will grow substantially. Yet, I believe that he spent at least three times as much money as Bevin to avoid an even more embarrassing result.

 

The power of incumbency, especially for the top ranking GOP Senator, should have been a huge advantage for McConnell and allowed him to coast to a landslide victory. 60 percent under the circumstances was not a very impressive win. If he does not adjust fire and stop poking conservatives in the eyes with his thumb, then he may be one of the few Republican Senate candidates to lose in November.

Curious about Chandler and coal. Did he vote against Pelosi on coal bills and she pulled Democratic support costing him reelection or he voted with Pelosi on coal bills and KY voters got ticked off and that cost him reelection?

 

He voted with her on coal regulation. But he voted against ACA (Obamacare). Both were close but she had what she needed for ACA and gave him a pass for cover in the election. But coal vote was interesting.

I would not call winning 60% to 35% to a candidate who put up a pretty good campaign a poor showing. Looks fairly dominant to me.

 

Something that is interesting, ALG had NO real competition yet didn't get almost a quarter of the votes. I would say that is what really stands out. If you have no competition, you would think you would get atleast 85% of the vote if not 90%. Not saying Mitch has a cake walk in his future but, I would have to believe he went to bed last night feeling pretty good.

 

I blame All Tell.