OT: Democratic Primary Thread

[HarthorneWingo]

Amy McGrath, the self-proclaimed "Trump Democrat"? Booker should request a recount.

Watch on YouTube

[Clyde_Style]

Amy McGrath, the self-proclaimed "Trump Democrat"? Booker should request a recount.

Watch on YouTube

Beating McConnell is what matters here and this wishful thinking that Booker would be a better candidate against McConnell when the public just informed you he's not is the same pettiness that arose after Biden was chosen by the public over Sanders.

Winning with McGrath is a hundred billion times more useful than losing with Booker, but since strategy doesn't matter at all to you go ahead and disregard the voting public and pretend Booker woulda, coulda, shoulda been the one.

The Democratic primaries have jack chit to do with the general election. That's the democrats voting only.

If you think enough Republicans were going to choose Booker over McConnell you're just tripping. It's a red state and that means you still needed a democrat that conservative swing Republicans can stomach to beat McConnell.

If Booker had won, McConnell would win for sure, but people love to talk smack and act like that ain't so. Common sense says otherwise.

Winning and putting the GOP six feet under should be your priority, but you're still splitting hairs over the wrong things.

[HarthorneWingo]

Amy McGrath, the self-proclaimed "Trump Democrat"? Booker should request a recount.

Watch on YouTube

Beating McConnell is what matters here and this wishful thinking that Booker would be a better candidate against McConnell when the public just informed you he's not is the same pettiness that arose after Biden was chosen by the public over Sanders.

Winning with McGrath is a hundred billion times more useful than losing with Booker, but since strategy doesn't matter at all to you go ahead and disregard the voting public and pretend Booker woulda, coulda, shoulda been the one.

The Democratic primaries have jack chit to do with the general election. That's the democrats voting only.

If you think enough Republicans were going to choose Booker over McConnell you're just tripping. It's a red state and that means you still needed a democrat that conservative swing Republicans can stomach to beat McConnell.

If Booker had won, McConnell would win for sure, but people love to talk smack and act like that ain't so. Common sense says otherwise.

Winning and putting the GOP six feet under should be your priority, but you're still splitting hairs over the wrong things.

Wishful thinking? He’s only 14 points down to Mitch. The “Trump Democrat” is down 20 points.

I hate McConnell just as much as anyone and also want to take back that seat. Also, I believe that the polls in KY also support the enactment of progressive policies, like M4A, that McGrath probably doesn’t support. She said she would’ve voted FOR Kavanaugh if in the Senate.

[Pointgod]

Amy McGrath, the self-proclaimed "Trump Democrat"? Booker should request a recount.

Watch on YouTube

Beating McConnell is what matters here and this wishful thinking that Booker would be a better candidate against McConnell when the public just informed you he's not is the same pettiness that arose after Biden was chosen by the public over Sanders.

Winning with McGrath is a hundred billion times more useful than losing with Booker, but since strategy doesn't matter at all to you go ahead and disregard the voting public and pretend Booker woulda, coulda, shoulda been the one.

The Democratic primaries have jack chit to do with the general election. That's the democrats voting only.

If you think enough Republicans were going to choose Booker over McConnell you're just tripping. It's a red state and that means you still needed a democrat that conservative swing Republicans can stomach to beat McConnell.

If Booker had won, McConnell would win for sure, but people love to talk smack and act like that ain't so. Common sense says otherwise.

Winning and putting the GOP six feet under should be your priority, but you're still splitting hairs over the wrong things.

Anyone that thinks either Booker or McGrath has more than a small chance beating McConnell is is smoking the good stuff. The important thing is that McGrath is a fund raising juggernaut which means that Mitch will also have to spend money to defend his seat. That’s important because it means less money for other vulnerable Senate Republicans and there are a lot of them.

Arizona, Colorado, Maine, North Carolina, Iowa, South Carolina, Montana are all very competitive. That’s not good at all for Republicans.

[Pointgod]

:lol:

Well Damn!

Read on Twitter

NSFMAGA

Spoiler:

You can never tell me that Republicans are not ruthless when it comes to campaigning. Their goal is to win at all costs. Which is why they win and while the Dems are always scratching our heads and wondering how some POS candidate became an elected official.

The brain trust behind the Lincoln Project are the former RNC chair and 2 of the most successful campaign managers for Republicans in the last 20 years. These guys have been free agents for the past 4 years because they were Never Trumpers.

Why the Democrats haven't brought these guys into the fold is mind-boggling. You want these people aiming at you again in 4 years?

The way I see it. The current political alliance is like Lex Luthor and Superman teaming up to save the world from a greater evil. Once Trump is defeated I fully expect the Never Trump Republicans to go back to their Lex Luthor roles. And that’s fine, they’re not left or liberal. They stuck true to their Conservative values and are actively trying to defeat Trump. They could have made ungodly amounts of money by sticking with the rest of the grifters in the Republican Party but they chose to do the right thing. Unless Democrats offer them huge sums of money I don’t see some of these guys jumping ship.

[Clyde_Style]

Amy McGrath, the self-proclaimed "Trump Democrat"? Booker should request a recount.

Watch on YouTube

Beating McConnell is what matters here and this wishful thinking that Booker would be a better candidate against McConnell when the public just informed you he's not is the same pettiness that arose after Biden was chosen by the public over Sanders.

Winning with McGrath is a hundred billion times more useful than losing with Booker, but since strategy doesn't matter at all to you go ahead and disregard the voting public and pretend Booker woulda, coulda, shoulda been the one.

The Democratic primaries have jack chit to do with the general election. That's the democrats voting only.

If you think enough Republicans were going to choose Booker over McConnell you're just tripping. It's a red state and that means you still needed a democrat that conservative swing Republicans can stomach to beat McConnell.

If Booker had won, McConnell would win for sure, but people love to talk smack and act like that ain't so. Common sense says otherwise.

Winning and putting the GOP six feet under should be your priority, but you're still splitting hairs over the wrong things.

Anyone that thinks either Booker or McGrath has more than a small chance beating McConnell is is smoking the good stuff. The important thing is that McGrath is a fund raising juggernaut which means that Mitch will also have to spend money to defend his seat. That’s important because it means less money for other vulnerable Senate Republicans and there are a lot of them.

Arizona, Colorado, Maine, North Carolina, Iowa, South Carolina, Montana are all very competitive. That’s not good at all for Republicans.

McConnell is still the likely winner, but if there is any kind of outlier event possible it will not happen in 2020 by pitting a more liberal candidate against Mitch. But since it is 2020 there may be the blue wave variable in play that upends the apple cart. Not counting on that in Kentucky, but if it happens it will happen in this election.

[Clyde_Style]

Amy McGrath, the self-proclaimed "Trump Democrat"? Booker should request a recount.

Watch on YouTube

Beating McConnell is what matters here and this wishful thinking that Booker would be a better candidate against McConnell when the public just informed you he's not is the same pettiness that arose after Biden was chosen by the public over Sanders.

Winning with McGrath is a hundred billion times more useful than losing with Booker, but since strategy doesn't matter at all to you go ahead and disregard the voting public and pretend Booker woulda, coulda, shoulda been the one.

The Democratic primaries have jack chit to do with the general election. That's the democrats voting only.

If you think enough Republicans were going to choose Booker over McConnell you're just tripping. It's a red state and that means you still needed a democrat that conservative swing Republicans can stomach to beat McConnell.

If Booker had won, McConnell would win for sure, but people love to talk smack and act like that ain't so. Common sense says otherwise.

Winning and putting the GOP six feet under should be your priority, but you're still splitting hairs over the wrong things.

Wishful thinking? He’s only 14 points down to Mitch. The “Trump Democrat” is down 20 points.

I hate McConnell just as much as anyone and also want to take back that seat. Also, I believe that the polls in KY also support the enactment of progressive policies, like M4A, that McGrath probably doesn’t support. She said she would’ve voted FOR Kavanaugh if in the Senate.

Got a link to a post-primary poll of ALL Kentucky voters that says that?

I don't know how many black republicans are in Kentucky, but I'd guess they could fit into a VW bus. So I'd definitely like to see a poll whose granulars break down the data and show more white republicans would vote for Booker in the general election.

[GONYK]

You can never tell me that Republicans are not ruthless when it comes to campaigning. Their goal is to win at all costs. Which is why they win and while the Dems are always scratching our heads and wondering how some POS candidate became an elected official.

The brain trust behind the Lincoln Project are the former RNC chair and 2 of the most successful campaign managers for Republicans in the last 20 years. These guys have been free agents for the past 4 years because they were Never Trumpers.

Why the Democrats haven't brought these guys into the fold is mind-boggling. You want these people aiming at you again in 4 years?

The way I see it. The current political alliance is like Lex Luthor and Superman teaming up to save the world from a greater evil. Once Trump is defeated I fully expect the Never Trump Republicans to go back to their Lex Luthor roles. And that’s fine, they’re not left or liberal. They stuck true to their Conservative values and are actively trying to defeat Trump. They could have made ungodly amounts of money by sticking with the rest of the grifters in the Republican Party but they chose to do the right thing. Unless Democrats offer them huge sums of money I don’t see some of these guys jumping ship.

I would say Democrats should consider offering them huge sums of money then

[Clyde_Style]

The brain trust behind the Lincoln Project are the former RNC chair and 2 of the most successful campaign managers for Republicans in the last 20 years. These guys have been free agents for the past 4 years because they were Never Trumpers.

Why the Democrats haven't brought these guys into the fold is mind-boggling. You want these people aiming at you again in 4 years?

The way I see it. The current political alliance is like Lex Luthor and Superman teaming up to save the world from a greater evil. Once Trump is defeated I fully expect the Never Trump Republicans to go back to their Lex Luthor roles. And that’s fine, they’re not left or liberal. They stuck true to their Conservative values and are actively trying to defeat Trump. They could have made ungodly amounts of money by sticking with the rest of the grifters in the Republican Party but they chose to do the right thing. Unless Democrats offer them huge sums of money I don’t see some of these guys jumping ship.

I would say Democrats should consider offering them huge sums of money then

Never underestimate the power of hookers and blow

[HarthorneWingo]

You can never tell me that Republicans are not ruthless when it comes to campaigning. Their goal is to win at all costs. Which is why they win and while the Dems are always scratching our heads and wondering how some POS candidate became an elected official.

The brain trust behind the Lincoln Project are the former RNC chair and 2 of the most successful campaign managers for Republicans in the last 20 years. These guys have been free agents for the past 4 years because they were Never Trumpers.

Why the Democrats haven't brought these guys into the fold is mind-boggling. You want these people aiming at you again in 4 years?

The way I see it. The current political alliance is like Lex Luthor and Superman teaming up to save the world from a greater evil. Once Trump is defeated I fully expect the Never Trump Republicans to go back to their Lex Luthor roles. And that’s fine, they’re not left or liberal. They stuck true to their Conservative values and are actively trying to defeat Trump. They could have made ungodly amounts of money by sticking with the rest of the grifters in the Republican Party but they chose to do the right thing. Unless Democrats offer them huge sums of money I don’t see some of these guys jumping ship.

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

[Barcs]

Amy McGrath, the self-proclaimed "Trump Democrat"? Booker should request a recount.

Watch on YouTube

Beating McConnell is what matters here and this wishful thinking that Booker would be a better candidate against McConnell when the public just informed you he's not is the same pettiness that arose after Biden was chosen by the public over Sanders.

Winning with McGrath is a hundred billion times more useful than losing with Booker, but since strategy doesn't matter at all to you go ahead and disregard the voting public and pretend Booker woulda, coulda, shoulda been the one.

The Democratic primaries have jack chit to do with the general election. That's the democrats voting only.

If you think enough Republicans were going to choose Booker over McConnell you're just tripping. It's a red state and that means you still needed a democrat that conservative swing Republicans can stomach to beat McConnell.

If Booker had won, McConnell would win for sure, but people love to talk smack and act like that ain't so. Common sense says otherwise.

Winning and putting the GOP six feet under should be your priority, but you're still splitting hairs over the wrong things.

Wishful thinking? He’s only 14 points down to Mitch. The “Trump Democrat” is down 20 points.

I hate McConnell just as much as anyone and also want to take back that seat. Also, I believe that the polls in KY also support the enactment of progressive policies, like M4A, that McGrath probably doesn’t support. She said she would’ve voted FOR Kavanaugh if in the Senate.

It's true that McGrath has a way better chance of beating McConnell, but Booker only lost due to voter suppression. They literally closed every polling place except 1 in Louisville, where 600,000 people live. Absolutely despicable and this is happening in every red state right now. Only hope for republicans to remain a party is to suppress voting.

[HarthorneWingo]

Beating McConnell is what matters here and this wishful thinking that Booker would be a better candidate against McConnell when the public just informed you he's not is the same pettiness that arose after Biden was chosen by the public over Sanders.

Winning with McGrath is a hundred billion times more useful than losing with Booker, but since strategy doesn't matter at all to you go ahead and disregard the voting public and pretend Booker woulda, coulda, shoulda been the one.

The Democratic primaries have jack chit to do with the general election. That's the democrats voting only.

If you think enough Republicans were going to choose Booker over McConnell you're just tripping. It's a red state and that means you still needed a democrat that conservative swing Republicans can stomach to beat McConnell.

If Booker had won, McConnell would win for sure, but people love to talk smack and act like that ain't so. Common sense says otherwise.

Winning and putting the GOP six feet under should be your priority, but you're still splitting hairs over the wrong things.

Wishful thinking? He’s only 14 points down to Mitch. The “Trump Democrat” is down 20 points.

I hate McConnell just as much as anyone and also want to take back that seat. Also, I believe that the polls in KY also support the enactment of progressive policies, like M4A, that McGrath probably doesn’t support. She said she would’ve voted FOR Kavanaugh if in the Senate.

It's true that McGrath has a way better chance of beating McConnell, but Booker only lost due to voter suppression. They literally closed every polling place except 1 in Louisville, where 600,000 people live. Absolutely despicable and this is happening in every red state right now. Only hope for republicans to remain a party is to suppress voting.

McGrath may have a better chance because of the money she'll spend, sure. But if Booker won, you don't think the DNC would throw tons of money his way because - at least according to those poll numbers (and they may be under-reporting Booker's numbers) - he's significantly closer to beating Mitch than McGrath AND he actually supports the programs that Kentuckians want which should drive them to the polls - so long as there's no monkey business played. Putting all that together suggests to me that Booker is the stronger candidate. McGrath just eeked out a win and Booker had no money to spend against her.

[Clyde_Style]

Wishful thinking? He’s only 14 points down to Mitch. The “Trump Democrat” is down 20 points.

I hate McConnell just as much as anyone and also want to take back that seat. Also, I believe that the polls in KY also support the enactment of progressive policies, like M4A, that McGrath probably doesn’t support. She said she would’ve voted FOR Kavanaugh if in the Senate.

It's true that McGrath has a way better chance of beating McConnell, but Booker only lost due to voter suppression. They literally closed every polling place except 1 in Louisville, where 600,000 people live. Absolutely despicable and this is happening in every red state right now. Only hope for republicans to remain a party is to suppress voting.

McGrath may have a better chance because of the money she'll spend, sure. But if Booker won, you don't think the DNC would throw tons of money his way because - at least according to those poll numbers (and they may be under-reporting Booker's numbers) - he's significantly closer to beating Mitch than McGrath AND he actually supports the programs that Kentuckians want which should drive them to the polls - so long as there's no monkey business played. Putting all that together suggests to me that Booker is the stronger candidate. McGrath just eeked out a win and Booker had no money to spend against her.

I think Booker would have gotten the DNC behind him, for sure.

I think Booker should have won in terms of fairness since it is likely votes in his favor were suppressed. Also, his surge came after many mail-in votes were already cast.

I can agree on all those points, but you keep saying Booker has a better chance than McGrath vs. Mitch with zero justification.

Again, where is your data that says more white republicans would vote for Booker than McGrath?

[Clyde_Style]

Happy 4th of July

Read on Twitter

Spoiler:

[HarthorneWingo]

It's true that McGrath has a way better chance of beating McConnell, but Booker only lost due to voter suppression. They literally closed every polling place except 1 in Louisville, where 600,000 people live. Absolutely despicable and this is happening in every red state right now. Only hope for republicans to remain a party is to suppress voting.

McGrath may have a better chance because of the money she'll spend, sure. But if Booker won, you don't think the DNC would throw tons of money his way because - at least according to those poll numbers (and they may be under-reporting Booker's numbers) - he's significantly closer to beating Mitch than McGrath AND he actually supports the programs that Kentuckians want which should drive them to the polls - so long as there's no monkey business played. Putting all that together suggests to me that Booker is the stronger candidate. McGrath just eeked out a win and Booker had no money to spend against her.

I think Booker would have gotten the DNC behind him, for sure.

I think Booker should have won in terms of fairness since it is likely votes in his favor were suppressed. Also, his surge came after many mail-in votes were already cast.

I can agree on all those points, but you keep saying Booker has a better chance than McGrath vs. Mitch with zero justification.

Again, where is your data that says more white republicans would vote for Booker than McGrath?

You have this knee flex reaction to thinking that the only way to pull republican voters is out-conservative the republican we're running against. I think that's wrong. One, there are more Dems than Republicans. So if we can enthuse our base to come out, then maybe we can start winning some of these races. You just admitted that Booker would've beaten McGrath if it was a level playing field.

A Trump-backed candidate LOST in Kentucky and you want to court Trump supporters? Fck them.

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2020-06-23/ny-ky-primaries-mail-in-ballots-deluge

__________________________________________________________

https://www.courier-journal.com/story/opinion/columnists/cross/2020/07/02/kentucky-us-senate-race-does-amy-mcgrath-have-any-chance-kentucky/5359749002/

McGrath escaped by less than 3% of the vote, and it seems clear that if most ballots had been cast on primary day, not earlier by absentee, she would have lost. That would have been one of the greatest pratfalls in modern American politics, since she’s raised more than $40 million, more than any other Senate candidate this year.

If she is to move her chances beyond theoretical, McGrath has to inspire confidence that will maintain her national funding base; get party-uniting help from Booker, who called her ”the b.s. candidate;” then escape that label and find a way to make Trump’s voters spurn McConnell, who has hitched himself closely to the more popular president.

https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/charles-booker-mcgrath-mcconnell/

A fresh Data for Progress poll puts Booker at 44 percent versus 36 percent for retired Marine fighter pilot and Democratic primary candidate Amy McGrath, whose “unimaginative and uninspiring” campaign has, in the words of the Louisville Courier-Journal, “fallen flat in these final weeks of the campaign.”

http://filesforprogress.org/datasets/2020/6/ky/Civiqs_DataforProgress_KY_banner_book_2020_06.pdf

Topline Results

1. If the election for U.S. senator from Kentucky were held today, and the candidates
were Mitch McConnell, Amy McGrath, and Brad Barron, who would you vote for?

Mitch McConnell, Republican 53%
Amy McGrath, Democrat 33%
Brad Barron, Libertarian 4%
Someone else 8%
Unsure 3%

2. If the election for U.S. senator from Kentucky were held today, and the candidates
were Mitch McConnell, Charles Booker, and Brad Barron, who would you vote for?

Mitch McConnell, Republican 52%
Charles Booker, Democrat 38%
Brad Barron, Libertarian 4%
Someone else 2%
Unsure 3%

3. If the election for president of the United States were held today, and the
choices were Donald Trump and Joe Biden, who would you vote for?

Donald Trump, Republican 57%
Joe Biden, Democrat 37%
Someone else 5%
Unsure 1%

4. If you plan to vote in the Democratic primary election for U.S. senator from Kentucky, who would you vote for? [Excluding response 'I will not vote in the Democratic primary']

Charles Booker 44%
Amy McGrath 36%
Mike Broihier 4%
Mary Ann Tobin 1%
Someone else 4%
Unsure 11%

5. Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of Mitch McConnell?

Favorable 43%
Unfavorable 48%
Unsure 9%

6. Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of Amy McGrath?

Favorable 24%
Unfavorable 59%
Unsure 18%

7. Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of Charles Booker?

Favorable 33%
Unfavorable 29%
Unsure 38%

8. Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of Donald Trump?

Favorable 55%
Unfavorable 42%
Unsure 2%

9. Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of Joe Biden?

Favorable 28%
Unfavorable 66%
Unsure 6%

[Clyde_Style]

McGrath may have a better chance because of the money she'll spend, sure. But if Booker won, you don't think the DNC would throw tons of money his way because - at least according to those poll numbers (and they may be under-reporting Booker's numbers) - he's significantly closer to beating Mitch than McGrath AND he actually supports the programs that Kentuckians want which should drive them to the polls - so long as there's no monkey business played. Putting all that together suggests to me that Booker is the stronger candidate. McGrath just eeked out a win and Booker had no money to spend against her.

I think Booker would have gotten the DNC behind him, for sure.

I think Booker should have won in terms of fairness since it is likely votes in his favor were suppressed. Also, his surge came after many mail-in votes were already cast.

I can agree on all those points, but you keep saying Booker has a better chance than McGrath vs. Mitch with zero justification.

Again, where is your data that says more white republicans would vote for Booker than McGrath?

You have this knee flex reaction to thinking that the only way to pull republican voters is out-conservative the republican we're running against. I think that's wrong. One, there are more Dems than Republicans. So if we can enthuse our base to come out, then maybe we can start winning some of these races. You just admitted that Booker would've beaten McGrath if it was a level playing field.

A Trump-backed candidate LOST in Kentucky and you want to court Trump supporters? Fck them.

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2020-06-23/ny-ky-primaries-mail-in-ballots-deluge

__________________________________________________________

https://www.courier-journal.com/story/opinion/columnists/cross/2020/07/02/kentucky-us-senate-race-does-amy-mcgrath-have-any-chance-kentucky/5359749002/

McGrath escaped by less than 3% of the vote, and it seems clear that if most ballots had been cast on primary day, not earlier by absentee, she would have lost. That would have been one of the greatest pratfalls in modern American politics, since she’s raised more than $40 million, more than any other Senate candidate this year.

If she is to move her chances beyond theoretical, McGrath has to inspire confidence that will maintain her national funding base; get party-uniting help from Booker, who called her ”the b.s. candidate;” then escape that label and find a way to make Trump’s voters spurn McConnell, who has hitched himself closely to the more popular president.

https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/charles-booker-mcgrath-mcconnell/

A fresh Data for Progress poll puts Booker at 44 percent versus 36 percent for retired Marine fighter pilot and Democratic primary candidate Amy McGrath, whose “unimaginative and uninspiring” campaign has, in the words of the Louisville Courier-Journal, “fallen flat in these final weeks of the campaign.”

http://filesforprogress.org/datasets/2020/6/ky/Civiqs_DataforProgress_KY_banner_book_2020_06.pdf

Topline Results

1. If the election for U.S. senator from Kentucky were held today, and the candidates
were Mitch McConnell, Amy McGrath, and Brad Barron, who would you vote for?

Mitch McConnell, Republican 53%
Amy McGrath, Democrat 33%
Brad Barron, Libertarian 4%
Someone else 8%
Unsure 3%

2. If the election for U.S. senator from Kentucky were held today, and the candidates
were Mitch McConnell, Charles Booker, and Brad Barron, who would you vote for?

Mitch McConnell, Republican 52%
Charles Booker, Democrat 38%
Brad Barron, Libertarian 4%
Someone else 2%
Unsure 3%

3. If the election for president of the United States were held today, and the
choices were Donald Trump and Joe Biden, who would you vote for?

Donald Trump, Republican 57%
Joe Biden, Democrat 37%
Someone else 5%
Unsure 1%

4. If you plan to vote in the Democratic primary election for U.S. senator from Kentucky, who would you vote for? [Excluding response 'I will not vote in the Democratic primary']

Charles Booker 44%
Amy McGrath 36%
Mike Broihier 4%
Mary Ann Tobin 1%
Someone else 4%
Unsure 11%

5. Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of Mitch McConnell?

Favorable 43%
Unfavorable 48%
Unsure 9%

6. Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of Amy McGrath?

Favorable 24%
Unfavorable 59%
Unsure 18%

7. Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of Charles Booker?

Favorable 33%
Unfavorable 29%
Unsure 38%

8. Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of Donald Trump?

Favorable 55%
Unfavorable 42%
Unsure 2%

9. Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of Joe Biden?

Favorable 28%
Unfavorable 66%
Unsure 6%

At least you went through the effort

But don't you see the problem with this data?

Look at this:

4. If you plan to vote in the Democratic primary election for U.S. senator from Kentucky, who would you vote for? [Excluding response 'I will not vote in the Democratic primary']

Charles Booker 44%
Amy McGrath 36%
Mike Broihier 4%
Mary Ann Tobin 1%
Someone else 4%
Unsure 11%

that has NOTHING do with how white republicans will vote. Asking a Democrat how they will vote is worthless data, because they're still going to vote for whomever is the Dem candidate if they truly want to unseat McConnell

the only relevant data would be whom registered Republicans will support

There is nothing knee jerk about my assumptions. It is common sense that a lifelong GOP voter is whom you need to get to vote for you to defeat Mitch and there is nothing in that data that I see that indicates why those voters are going to ditch him for a progressive candidate when they time and again vote for Mitch even when they don't even like him all that much

[HarthorneWingo]

I think Booker would have gotten the DNC behind him, for sure.

I think Booker should have won in terms of fairness since it is likely votes in his favor were suppressed. Also, his surge came after many mail-in votes were already cast.

I can agree on all those points, but you keep saying Booker has a better chance than McGrath vs. Mitch with zero justification.

Again, where is your data that says more white republicans would vote for Booker than McGrath?

You have this knee flex reaction to thinking that the only way to pull republican voters is out-conservative the republican we're running against. I think that's wrong. One, there are more Dems than Republicans. So if we can enthuse our base to come out, then maybe we can start winning some of these races. You just admitted that Booker would've beaten McGrath if it was a level playing field.

A Trump-backed candidate LOST in Kentucky and you want to court Trump supporters? Fck them.

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2020-06-23/ny-ky-primaries-mail-in-ballots-deluge

__________________________________________________________

https://www.courier-journal.com/story/opinion/columnists/cross/2020/07/02/kentucky-us-senate-race-does-amy-mcgrath-have-any-chance-kentucky/5359749002/

McGrath escaped by less than 3% of the vote, and it seems clear that if most ballots had been cast on primary day, not earlier by absentee, she would have lost. That would have been one of the greatest pratfalls in modern American politics, since she’s raised more than $40 million, more than any other Senate candidate this year.

If she is to move her chances beyond theoretical, McGrath has to inspire confidence that will maintain her national funding base; get party-uniting help from Booker, who called her ”the b.s. candidate;” then escape that label and find a way to make Trump’s voters spurn McConnell, who has hitched himself closely to the more popular president.

https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/charles-booker-mcgrath-mcconnell/

A fresh Data for Progress poll puts Booker at 44 percent versus 36 percent for retired Marine fighter pilot and Democratic primary candidate Amy McGrath, whose “unimaginative and uninspiring” campaign has, in the words of the Louisville Courier-Journal, “fallen flat in these final weeks of the campaign.”

http://filesforprogress.org/datasets/2020/6/ky/Civiqs_DataforProgress_KY_banner_book_2020_06.pdf

Topline Results

1. If the election for U.S. senator from Kentucky were held today, and the candidates
were Mitch McConnell, Amy McGrath, and Brad Barron, who would you vote for?

Mitch McConnell, Republican 53%
Amy McGrath, Democrat 33%
Brad Barron, Libertarian 4%
Someone else 8%
Unsure 3%

2. If the election for U.S. senator from Kentucky were held today, and the candidates
were Mitch McConnell, Charles Booker, and Brad Barron, who would you vote for?

Mitch McConnell, Republican 52%
Charles Booker, Democrat 38%
Brad Barron, Libertarian 4%
Someone else 2%
Unsure 3%

3. If the election for president of the United States were held today, and the
choices were Donald Trump and Joe Biden, who would you vote for?

Donald Trump, Republican 57%
Joe Biden, Democrat 37%
Someone else 5%
Unsure 1%

4. If you plan to vote in the Democratic primary election for U.S. senator from Kentucky, who would you vote for? [Excluding response 'I will not vote in the Democratic primary']

Charles Booker 44%
Amy McGrath 36%
Mike Broihier 4%
Mary Ann Tobin 1%
Someone else 4%
Unsure 11%

5. Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of Mitch McConnell?

Favorable 43%
Unfavorable 48%
Unsure 9%

6. Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of Amy McGrath?

Favorable 24%
Unfavorable 59%
Unsure 18%

7. Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of Charles Booker?

Favorable 33%
Unfavorable 29%
Unsure 38%

8. Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of Donald Trump?

Favorable 55%
Unfavorable 42%
Unsure 2%

9. Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of Joe Biden?

Favorable 28%
Unfavorable 66%
Unsure 6%

At least you went through the effort

But don't you see the problem with this data?

Look at this:

4. If you plan to vote in the Democratic primary election for U.S. senator from Kentucky, who would you vote for? [Excluding response 'I will not vote in the Democratic primary']

Charles Booker 44%
Amy McGrath 36%
Mike Broihier 4%
Mary Ann Tobin 1%
Someone else 4%
Unsure 11%

that has NOTHING do with how white republicans will vote. Asking a Democrat how they will vote is worthless data, because they're still going to vote for whomever is the Dem candidate if they truly want to unseat McConnell

the only relevant data would be whom registered Republicans will support

There is nothing knee jerk about my assumptions. It is common sense that a lifelong GOP voter is whom you need to get to vote for you to defeat Mitch and there is nothing in that data that I see that indicates why those voters are going to ditch him for a progressive candidate when they time and again vote for Mitch even when they don't even like him all that much

Oh, I assure you, I did more than just "put in the effort." The case is as clear as day, pzrticlulary when you account for the clear evidence of significant voter suppression. Take you back-handed compliments and stick 'em up your sweaty and smelly ass.

That's why I enlarged the approval polling on Booker vs. McGrath vs. McConnell. Booker is the only one with a + favorability rating ... and that wasn't just Democrats. It's all right there for you on a silver platter if you want to accept the numbers. Maybe you can put in some effort to find that one particular stat you believe is the foundation for you opinion. I did my job.

I'll even enlarge all three polls which answer your question.

[Clyde_Style]

That's why I enlarged the approval polling on Booker vs. McGrath vs. McConnell. Booker is the only one with a + favorability rating ... and that wasn't just Democrats. It's all right there for you on a silver platter if you want to accept the number. Maybe you can put in some effort to find that one particular stat you believe is the foundation for you opinion. I did my job.

You are really stuck on favorability ratings which DO NOT automatically correlate into how people will vote. If they did, then McConnell would have been defeated a long time ago. His favorability ratings do not equal a majority, but he gets a majority every time anyway.

Anyway, I hope McGrath pulls off an upset and I certainly would have been rooting for Booker to do the same if he was in her place now.

[Barcs]

Wishful thinking? He’s only 14 points down to Mitch. The “Trump Democrat” is down 20 points.

I hate McConnell just as much as anyone and also want to take back that seat. Also, I believe that the polls in KY also support the enactment of progressive policies, like M4A, that McGrath probably doesn’t support. She said she would’ve voted FOR Kavanaugh if in the Senate.

It's true that McGrath has a way better chance of beating McConnell, but Booker only lost due to voter suppression. They literally closed every polling place except 1 in Louisville, where 600,000 people live. Absolutely despicable and this is happening in every red state right now. Only hope for republicans to remain a party is to suppress voting.

McGrath may have a better chance because of the money she'll spend, sure. But if Booker won, you don't think the DNC would throw tons of money his way because - at least according to those poll numbers (and they may be under-reporting Booker's numbers) - he's significantly closer to beating Mitch than McGrath AND he actually supports the programs that Kentuckians want which should drive them to the polls - so long as there's no monkey business played. Putting all that together suggests to me that Booker is the stronger candidate. McGrath just eeked out a win and Booker had no money to spend against her.

He's the guy I wanted, but Kentucky is not a progressive state and he's very progressive, while McGrath is more in the middle and appealing to both sides. So many of the non progressives will favor McGrath vs McConnell. The people who would vote Booker over McConnell will mostly be suppressed again, like with Louisville and that's why he would lose. He's a way better candidate, Kentucky is just a regressive state, hard to get a real progressive elected there.

[thebuzzardman]

Amy McGrath, the self-proclaimed "Trump Democrat"? Booker should request a recount.

Watch on YouTube

Beating McConnell is what matters here and this wishful thinking that Booker would be a better candidate against McConnell when the public just informed you he's not is the same pettiness that arose after Biden was chosen by the public over Sanders.

Winning with McGrath is a hundred billion times more useful than losing with Booker, but since strategy doesn't matter at all to you go ahead and disregard the voting public and pretend Booker woulda, coulda, shoulda been the one.

The Democratic primaries have jack chit to do with the general election. That's the democrats voting only.

If you think enough Republicans were going to choose Booker over McConnell you're just tripping. It's a red state and that means you still needed a democrat that conservative swing Republicans can stomach to beat McConnell.

If Booker had won, McConnell would win for sure, but people love to talk smack and act like that ain't so. Common sense says otherwise.

Winning and putting the GOP six feet under should be your priority, but you're still splitting hairs over the wrong things.

Wishful thinking? He’s only 14 points down to Mitch. The “Trump Democrat” is down 20 points.

I hate McConnell just as much as anyone and also want to take back that seat. Also, I believe that the polls in KY also support the enactment of progressive policies, like M4A, that McGrath probably doesn’t support. She said she would’ve voted FOR Kavanaugh if in the Senate.

Argue all you want in your intramural democratic pissing contest.

Neither of these candidates is beating out B*tch McConnell in Kentucky.

He delivers the racism and the goods that people in that state enjoy.