Jump to content
270soft Forum

Democrats win in Kentucky in age of Trump


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 51
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

2019 Election Results:

  • Democrats flip Virginia Senate and House, taking control of state government for the first time in a generation.
  • Democrats flip Kentucky Governor, defeating an incumbent Republican that Trump campaigned heavily for.
  • Democrats fail to flip Mississippi Governor, but come much closer than expected; currently 52%-47%.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/05/us/politics/ky-va-ms-elections-recap.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tonight was proven that this nation is sick of Trump and he will be past in 2021,and also we have a chance to beat McConnell too!Please dont screw this one up Democrats!

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jayavarman said:

Democrats fail to flip Mississippi Governor, but come much closer than expected; currently 52%-47%.

Not really, this was about expected.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This really puts the GA Gubernational race and Stacey Abrams in perspective. She had every leg up in a year that Democrats performed very strongly in. Was she a weak candidate after all? Are her claims of voter suppression more on point than anyone knew?

I'm leaning towards the former. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Herbert Hoover said:

This really puts the GA Gubernational race and Stacey Abrams in perspective. She had every leg up in a year that Democrats performed very strongly in. Was she a weak candidate after all? Are her claims of voter suppression more on point than anyone knew?

I'm leaning towards the former. 

One might ask the same about Beto O'Rourke

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, pilight said:

One might ask the same about Beto O'Rourke

Good point. I think Beto was a good choice on that he had such a personality cult that had he been elected, he could have taken more risks than a standard Democrat in Texas and not ruined his chance for reelection. However, he seemed a better choice for an off year where there was a lower chance of defeating an incumbent. He's got "swing" up or down than your standard Democrat, I feel. 

That being said, I think that Beto would have best served the country by never attempting his disastrous Presidential campaign where he completely flipped his tone. A run at Senate 2020 would have been perfect for him. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Patine said:

Not knowing the populations of each of those counties, that map is not REALLY not evocative.

The point is the percentages.

Last time, the Democrat candidate for Mississippi Governor got only 32% of the vote.

This time, the Democrat candidate got 47%.

That's a huge improvement.  Now, is it because the candidate was better or because there's a "blue wave" coming?  I don't know enough about the race to know -- but taken along with the Kentucky win, I'm leaning blue wave.

Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Herbert Hoover said:

This really puts the GA Gubernational race and Stacey Abrams in perspective. She had every leg up in a year that Democrats performed very strongly in. Was she a weak candidate after all? Are her claims of voter suppression more on point than anyone knew?

I'm leaning towards the former. 

I agree, Dems may have won Georgia

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

The point is the percentages.

Last time, the Democrat candidate for Mississippi Governor got only 32% of the vote.

This time, the Democrat candidate got 47%.

That's a huge improvement.  Now, is it because the candidate was better or because there's a "blue wave" coming?  I don't know enough about the race to know -- but taken along with the Kentucky win, I'm leaning blue wave.

Well, I believe in 1955, the Democratic candidate got around 95% of the vote in the Mississippi Gubernatorial Election. :P

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Herbert Hoover said:

This really puts the GA Gubernational race and Stacey Abrams in perspective. She had every leg up in a year that Democrats performed very strongly in. Was she a weak candidate after all? Are her claims of voter suppression more on point than anyone knew?

I'm leaning towards the former. 

Abrams did better than any Democrat since Mitch Skandalakis torpedoed the whole Republican party in 1998.  She did spectacularly well considering she was virtually unknown outside Atlanta before the race and she was a black woman running for governor of a state that's never elected a black person or a woman to that position.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Jayavarman said:

2019 Election Results:

  • Democrats flip Kentucky Governor, defeating an incumbent Republican that Trump campaigned heavily for.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/05/us/politics/ky-va-ms-elections-recap.html

Taking into account the fact incumbent Governor Matt Bevin hasn't conceded; assuming the call holds up for Andy Beshear (currently a margin of just over 5000 votes separate the two), there would be two factors in the Democrat's favor:

  • The family ties (Andy's father, Steve, being Matt Bevin's predecessor as Kentucky Governor and to my knowledge had been relatively popular as Governor)
  • Bevin had a big target on his back with regards to clashing with the teachers' unions (similar to the frequent clashes in Wisconsin between the teacher's unions there and then-Governor Scott Walker)

On the other hand; it seems at least in Kentucky the GOP did pretty well in the down-ballot races, most prominently with Daniel Cameron being elected as Andy Beshear's successor as Attorney General (making him the first black Attorney General in the state's history as well as the first Republican since 1944 to hold that office).

Edited by HamptonRoadsTVFan
added margin of victory
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Jayavarman said:

Big results swing from the last MS Gov race.

image.png.02b37cccee870064eec9b6dad316a0ae.png

 

9 hours ago, Harris/Ernst 2020 said:

I would say it was less than expected. I heard from a few that Hood winning the popular vote was most likely.

 

2 hours ago, Actinguy said:

The point is the percentages.

Last time, the Democrat candidate for Mississippi Governor got only 32% of the vote.

This time, the Democrat candidate got 47%.

That's a huge improvement.  Now, is it because the candidate was better or because there's a "blue wave" coming?  I don't know enough about the race to know -- but taken along with the Kentucky win, I'm leaning blue wave.

As someone that has followed these races closely and has worked with people on the ground in each, let me say this.

JIM HOOD IS NOT BOB GRAY

Jim Hood represents the outsider pro-gun pro-life center-right Democrat that can still win in Mississippi, Tate Reeves was every bit the establishment country club Republican that helps Blue Collar conservatives like Hood do well. This was all about candidates and Hood was the best shot the Democrats had in the Magnolia State, everyone knew this would be a tight race, it fell in line with expectations.

And as above folks said, Kentucky was mostly about last names and popularity contests.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Kentucky's had more registered Democrats than Republicans for decades. It's not out of the question that a red, rural state elects a Christian, moderate Democrat, see West Virginia, Montana, etc. Republicans have always been more willing to cross party lines than Democrats.

Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, ThePotatoWalrus said:

Kentucky's had more registered Democrats than Republicans for decades. It's not out of the question that a red, rural state elects a Christian, moderate Democrat, see West Virginia, Montana, etc. Republicans have always been more willing to cross party lines than Democrats.

There are very, very few followers of the Ministry of Christ in American politics, or in politics anywhere. Somehow, following a religion and spiritual lifestyle that rejects violence, vindictiveness, greed, lies and falsehood and promotes forgiveness and charity makes rectifying being a modern politician EXTREMELY difficult.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ThePotatoWalrus said:

Kentucky's had more registered Democrats than Republicans for decades. It's not out of the question that a red, rural state elects a Christian, moderate Democrat, see West Virginia, Montana, etc. Republicans have always been more willing to cross party lines than Democrats.

Pete Buttigieg for the 2020 win!

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

Pete Buttigieg for the 2020 win!

I'd rather not. Even though it's a Trump Presidency, I'm enjoying this ebb in American warmongering, and I feel Sanders, MAYBE Warren (not quite sure on her), are the most likely to carry it onward. Buttigieg seems like the most likely of those more or less in contention to cry "Havoc," and let slip the dogs of war again.

Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Patine said:

I'd rather not. Even though it's a Trump Presidency, I'm enjoying this ebb in American warmongering, and I feel Sanders, MAYBE Warren (not quite sure on her), are the most likely to carry it onward. Buttigieg seems like the most likely of those more or less in contention to cry "Havoc," and let slip the dogs of war again.

America may not be as eager to go to war with a wildly incompetent President in charge, it is true.

But are you imagining that North Korea, Iran, Russia, China, and various terrorist groups are just sitting back and relaxing, enjoying a few years off?

Or do you think they are using our absence from the world stage to their maximum advantage, ensuring that future wars are more deadly than we could ever imagine?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Actinguy said:

America may not be as eager to go to war with a wildly incompetent President in charge, it is true.

But are you imagining that North Korea, Iran, Russia, China, and various terrorist groups are just sitting back and relaxing, enjoying a few years off?

Or do you think they are using our absence from the world stage to their maximum advantage, ensuring that future wars are more deadly than we could ever imagine?

Personally, starting a war with North Korea or Iran is not something I'd support AT ALL. Like Iraq (or Vietnam), they are not remotely a military or political threat to the United States as a nation, or it's sovereign territory. They are not comparable to the Rome-Berlin-Tokyo Axis in any remote sense of the word. A war with Russia, and possibly even China, would end with, effectively, the exposition for the Mad Max movies, the Wasteland and Fallout computer games, and the Crysalids and Threads novels. And, as I've said above, the "War on Terror" is a farce, like the "War on Drugs," as these things cannot be won by military force, especially while ignoring, not dealing with productively, or even denying their REAL root causes and the REAL issues behind them - causes and issues that military force only exacerbate and make worse. And when you've got a "terrorist organization" - matching up to the U.S. Department of State's own issued definition of the term - the Central Intelligence Agency - as one of your biggest tools to conduct this "War on Terror," the whole loses any integrity or credibility from the start. But, as Thomas Aquinous said," those who seek sin fervently find it far much more readily, and those who seek enemies fervently find them in much greater numbers."

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Patine said:

Personally, starting a war with North Korea or Iran is not something I'd support AT ALL. Like Iraq (or Vietnam), they are not remotely a military or political threat to the United States as a nation, or it's sovereign territory. They are not comparable to the Rome-Berlin-Tokyo Axis in any remote sense of the word. A war with Russia, and possibly even China, would end with, effectively, the exposition for the Mad Max movies, the Wasteland and Fallout computer games, and the Crysalids and Threads novels. And, as I've said above, the "War on Terror" is a farce, like the "War on Drugs," as these things cannot be won by military force, especially while ignoring, not dealing with productively, or even denying their REAL root causes and the REAL issues behind them - causes and issues that military force only exacerbate and make worse. And when you've got a "terrorist organization" - matching up to the U.S. Department of State's own issued definition of the term - the Central Intelligence Agency - as one of your biggest tools to conduct this "War on Terror," the whole loses any integrity or credibility from the start. But, as Thomas Aquinous said," those who seek sin fervently find it far much more readily, and those who seek enemies fervently find them in much greater numbers."

I would prefer we avoid war too.  But the “threat” of war, along with other destabilizing operations, have to stay on the table to keep other countries in line.

Right now, there’s no realistic threat that Trump would actually have the attention span necessary for prolonged action, and therefore countries can do whatever they want.

There will be DEEP repercussions for our 4-8 year absence from the global stage.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...