US Politics, June 2020 — You have to dominate.

xpost booker/mcgrath, i don't know wasserman's reasoning, but:

Ok, I've finally seen enough: Amy McGrath (D) has defeated Charles Booker (D) in the #KYSEN primary.

— Dave Wasserman (@Redistrict) June 30, 2020

here's the WashPo tally, which i think has more up-to-date data:

https://i.imgur.com/ztm4e1i.png

i think the reasoning behind calling it for mcgrath is that the remaining votes are now in rural districts.

tbh, either one of them is going to lose to mcconnell. but booker would have inspired a lot more people along the way than fucking amy mcgrath will

I disagree, but we will never know.

you disagree that they'd both lose to mcconnell? i'd say mcgrath has a 99.9999999999999% chance of losing to mcconnell, but booker had a 95% chance of losing to him.

then again, i probably don't have a good feel for the political motivations of the totally non-racist people of kentucky who have re-elected a comic supervillain as their senator every 6 years since 1984

Booker would have awakened the sleeping progressive giant in...Kentucky.

McGrath polls better against McConnell right now, but doesn't mean Booker couldn't get people more fired up by November.

not leaking stuff about trump is the right strategic move for pretty much any foreign country.

but saying it hasn't happened because it wouldn't be strategically wise requires you to believe all those foreign countries are strategically wise, which seems like a stretch.

2007 census has KY as the second most white state in the south, after west virginia and #45 in per capita income overall (WV is #49); mitch is both symptom and cause of a lot of that.

i believe these to be true:

mcgrath is going to win.

neither of them would come within five points of mcconnell.

booker would have run a better campaign and raised more money which would have forced mcconnell to spend more time and money at home, and been better for down ballot races in kentucky.

(mcgrath is going to win the primary)

xp booker can be a better candidate for democrats, and still lose. both of those of things can happen.

i can tell you, when you grow up in a place like rural kentucky, and you're a young person that cares about things, it is incredibly depressing when the democrats in all their wisdom prop up centrist military vets as the candidate year after year, if they bother to try at all.

a true progressive candidate may not win, but they give a whole bunch of people of conscience something to fight for. fighting a losing campaign for booker would be very different than fighting a losing campaign for mcgrath, in terms of working toward a future where people don't roll their eyes at the likelihood of a progressive winning in KY

yeah once you realize that electoral success in this race on this occasion is unlikely you can and should choose a candidate that has other strengths, which booker has. unfortunately mcgrath had too much time and money and there were enough spoiler candidates.

xxpost No, I disagree that Booker would do much or any better than McGrath. They are both doomed to lose to Mitch, though you never know, it could be closer than past elections.

Dems really going to take every single wrong lesson from this election huh

josh, just curious, what do you think about my point about booker being more inspiring to democrats in KY than mcgrath, that it's about more than this single election, it's about showing democrats in KY that they could actually be involved in something inspiring and important, etc

McGrath, by winning (assuming she won), proves she better reflects the party atm, but only barely. Booker had the potential to move and to change the party, to a point where he became the better reflection. But elections are a snapshot of where things stand on election day. McGrath.

just ftr my comment isn’t to dunk on KY democrats per se;

just that these kinda of wins will only serve to embolden the absolute worst ppl outside of MAGAland

McGrath, by winning (assuming she won), proves she better reflects the party atm, but only barely.

i think it only proves that she was the outsized benefit of early voting (booker didn't pick up steam til late) and that she had a ton of money from outside actors, and at an early stage of her campiagn, while booker did not

We need tipsy mothra in here.

McGrath is a good candidate, and in the South, characters like her or my current governor (West Point/airborne CPT Jon Bel Edwards) are the best chance of preventing the very worst of the ignoramuses from winning. It's a big tent. I don't like it, but squeaking out wins for non-monsters means moderates painted in the flag.

McGrath will do very well in out of state funding, as she did in the primary.

so I have a confession

Jon Ossoff's hot.

Was at a red light and thought that said Stossel

yumz

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/17/74/c5/1774c538167f2c371ec5b9f7dbf4bde5.jpg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfyA5whMGAw

Dems really going to take every single wrong lesson from this election huh

evergreen post

xxpost No, I disagree that Booker would do much or any better than McGrath. They are both doomed to lose to Mitch, though you never know, it could be closer than past elections.

― Josh in Chicago, Tuesday, June 30, 2020 12:48 PM (one hour ago) bookmarkflaglink

is this an xpost to me? it seems like a misreading of my comment. if you think they'll both lose, what's your definition of "better"?

think that was an xpost to me. i had asked "josh, just curious, what do you think about my point about booker being more inspiring to democrats in KY than mcgrath, that it's about more than this single election, it's about showing democrats in KY that they could actually be involved in something inspiring and important, etc"

you asked that after his post.

whoops sorry, i need to stop multitasking ilx with work, everything's getting screwed up today.

Yeah, it was to Karl. McGrath or Booker would likely lose to Mitch, but I don't think Booker would necessarily do better than McGrath.

But we will never know.

To follow on to Karl's point, is there any utility in talking about how this race is perceived outside Kentucky?

Especially if you think either D candidate would lose. Seems like some of the reflected warmth from a Booker victory would be about non-Kentuckian progressives being made to feel better, or more energized, or more vindicated, or ore hopeful or whatever.

Like, as far as I know nobody here lives in Kentucky (though I'd be happy to be contradicted on this point). But we're all watching it and trying to read the tea leaves.

Well, I suppose one reason to pay attention is that a state is more than its senators and congressmen. There are governors, local government, school boards, that sort of thing. So seeing how far one side goes in one direction could give hints on where all those other races could go, or could one day go. And if that persists then it could indicate where top ballot races might be heading.

This is why I asked what your definition of “better” is in a race that neither candidate can win. “Loses by the least” is missing an opportunity imo (although I guess that tends to help downballot races).

tipsy and roxymuzak live in TN

Would the loser be in opposition throughout the next political term and therefore be being influential on what was happening during the period. Or is it just a figurehead role for the one position?
Would have thought having a more liberal opposition might have some effect anyway.

Also I thought McConnell was becoming really unpopular i KY according to things i was hearing a few months ago. So has he got less unpopular since then?
Thought he was recognised to be completely evil.

I think he's the least popular member of Congress but idk how his numbers are in Kentucky

speaking of kentucky

A quote from Rand Paul at the Senate coronavirus hearing: "We shouldn't presume that a group of experts somehow knows what's best for everyone."

— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) June 30, 2020

Thought he was recognised to be completely evil.

― Stevolende, Tuesday, June 30, 2020 3:53 PM (eleven minutes ago)

Evil gets pretty good poll numbers in the US

.@PressSec: ‘The President does read’

— Zeke Miller (@ZekeJMiller) June 30, 2020

The White House says Trump has now been briefed on what was in his daily written intelligence briefing back in February, per the NYT.

— Kaitlan Collins (@kaitlancollins) June 30, 2020

TFW you tell your boss the thing you already told him in an email and he goes 'why didn't you tell me that before'

"The president does read" for July thread title.

Has anyone pieced together what he was actually doing that day, and the following day?

he met with D1amond and S1lk in the oval office, for one thing

tipsy and roxymuzak live in TN

roxy is actually in Virginia these days fwiw.

From TN, it's always interesting to watch Kentucky. Democrats have obviously not been eliminated from serious statewide competition in Kentucky the way they have here for at least the near future. But the same kind of Booker-McGrath arguments play out among progressives here. The most recent iteration was in 2018, when a lot of Tennessee lefties bemoaned the nomination of super-old white guy moderate Phil Bredesen to run against Marsha Blackburn. When he got trounced, there were some definite told-you-so's from the left, but imo anyone farther left than Bredesen would have done worse. He did in fact rack up a good number of moderate Republican votes — which you could see in the difference between the Senate results and the governor's race — but not nearly enough to be competitive.

So my gut instinct is that in a legitimately close race in a mostly red state, a more moderate candidate is more likely to capitalize on anti-Trump disgust than a more progressive one. The trade-off is that it alienates the younger activists -- so if you don't have a really close race, if you're probably going to lose anyway, you might do better with a younger, more inspiring candidate who can energize people and build for the future. But it's a hard call.

Ahh! i had forgotten that roxy was 'gone'.

So my gut instinct is that in a legitimately close race in a mostly red state, a more moderate candidate is more likely to capitalize on anti-Trump disgust than a more progressive one.

i lean toward this view too. i had typed out a long post earlier that i think i deleted about doug jones vs roy moore, 2017 special election. in those circumstances, doug jones was a great candidate for that situation. roy moore seemed to be purposefully self-sabotaging his campaign. democrats just needed to run a non-pedophile that didn't scare anyone in alabama off with thoughts of imminent marxist revolution, and it worked.

but for the more common races in red states, where everything is so heavily tilted toward the republican candidate, i don't think it always makes sense to run a moderate - in general i'd lean toward the candidate that inspires the most ANYTHING out of left-leaning voters. mcgrath is not that candidate, booker is (imo)