Kentuckian here. It's a shame how the down-ballot races went, but it could have been a hell of a lot worse. As it is, Andy will be able to keep the wild-eyed loons in the General Assembly from running roughshod over folks in most cases. Also, he just might get to appoint Mitch's replacement and that would be a mighty fine thing to see.
I'm watching election results now. A couple of national projections have called it for Beshear. I'm not comfortable with it just yet. What is so strange about this state though is just about every other republican is winning. Beshear has a 60 % approval rating so that's a good start.
It was like this last time, too. The Republican candidate for governor was extremely unpopular with everybody, even his own party. Also there is the fact of severe voter suppression, along with gerrymandered districts.
I can't help but consider the race of the Republican candidate may have been a factor in the margin of victory. I know Cameron won the primary, but I will posit that there is a not insignificant percentage of white racist Republicans in Kentucky who will never vote for a black person for anything.
I just looked it up and Cameron won the primary with 47%. That leaves a hefty 53% of Republicans who did not vote for him in the primary and some nontrivial percentage of those did so based solely on his race.
This comment is certainly not meant to take anything away from Beshear who seems to be a very good Democrat in an otherwise very red state. So, I'll just end with a hearty congratulations to the newly re-elected Governor of Kentucky.
I feel like this is one where Beshear winning means a lot more for Democrats than it will mean for Republicans if the other guy wins (I've already forgotten his name).
but two horse race! dems in disarray! biden is old! both sides! whatabout... (i mean at this point we could just copy and paste those things from now until the end of the elections, and then do it again for the next election cycle)
I don't know who is really responsible for Obama's 2008 victory, but these key factors helped decide it:
1) Focusing on picking up large banks of delegates even in states he lost, and in states most campaigns wrote off, which ultimately helped him overtake Hillary. Note: there was also some amazing luck, in that Florida and Michigan (where Hillary had an advantage based on polling) had their delegates disqualified.
2) Obama's own skill in being able to appear moderate and liberal at the same time, enabling him to both reach Dems who were sour on Hillary, and later Dems, Indies and even some Republicans in the general election.
3) Message discipline. It's telling that the only "gaffes" Republicans had to go on were "57 states" and "bitter clingers" and "Jeremiah Wright", none of which got real traction.
4) Focus on small donations and coming back to the well through internet fundraising, and saying "fuck it" about matching federal contributions--enabling a massive money haul that surpassed McCain's.
5) Focus on microtargeting voters through data analysis and coupling this with a localized ground game at the neighborhood level that reached a LOT of nonvoters, which meant winning not just swing states but a lot of reach states--biggest victory of the century so far.
It was a very well-run operation, and sure it did benefit from luck (Hillary's campaign was just a mess of waiting for a victory that didn't happen, Republicans were just a dirty word that year thanks to the crumbling economy and Bush's ratings), but they were well positioned to exploit that luck. Not sure how much Axelrod or anyone else had to do with it, but it'd be nice to see Dems fight like that again.
Also McCain's huge misstep in recruiting Palin. She was a disaster almost from the get go. Yet another fake politician who only wanted to be famous and not effective. See also all the "reality shows" she and he spawn were on.
Yep--obviously that's what he was referring to (the number of primaries, not states) but that shows how desperate Republicans were to find a gaffe. He really didn't give them much.
Funny, I thought in last 'graph you were referring to Hilary's 2016 campaign. Dems sure rely on "it's just my turn" an awful lot. (And before I get set upon, I am and always will be and vote Democrat unless Eric Adams gets the nomination. At that point, we're all fucked anyway and i might as well start drinking again)
The point of people "setting upon" you is that it's still essentially falling for the media narrative. Hillary's CAMPAIGN didn't say "it's my turn" that was other people and the media.
Her actual campaign was about how well QUALIFIED and PREPAREDD she was. She had a website with more detailed policy than any candidate before or since (with the possible exception of some Communist with a manifesto somewhere, but that would only be a volume metric at that point anyway). And she was successfully moved left, at which point the Berners threw the largest tantrum anyone's seen until Trump's election gang, complaining about the "her turn" stuff.
Her 2016 campaign just demonstrated that she and her team hadn't learned a damn thing from 2008--another year they thought it was in the bag, tried to hold a lead rather than actually fight to win, and lost in an upset.
I mean, great that in 2008 it led to Obama's win, but FFS, in 2016 we REALLY needed her to have learned how this shit can happen.
I'd seen someone comment that both of Hillary's campaigns focused on experience, character, and fitness to lead, when her husband defeated two Republicans who tried the same thing against him.
I appreciate when HRC supporters talk about Hillary's website with detailed policy and how qualified she was, but the reality is that this often isn't enough to win an election.
The dumpster fire of an economy was what helped a Democrat win. My Republican mother MAY have voted for Obama in 2008. I think watching her life savings get incinerated during Bush's reign went a long way towards her finally voting for the right person.
It certainly helped, but you can also imagine how Hillary (and later, McCain) could have used that against Obama: "this guy just barely got to Washington, he's young and untested, you need an experienced hand at the tiller" and of course both Hillary and McCain could have said they were also "running against" Bush and the status quo. Obama instead came across like not just an ideas man, but a quick study, with smart advisers and a calm, steady demeanor that reassured voters that he wouldn't be in over his head.
The "Miracle of the Bush Economy," following on the "Miracle of the Reagan Economy" certainly didn't convince people that THE GOP isn't the party of good economies.
The objectively funniest press conference of all time happened today when Rudy googled four seasons and sent the national networks to an industrial park in philidelphia
It appears that domestic abuser and gun humper Rahimi is a bridge too far for the majority of the Supreme Court. Thomas is still trying to drag back the history test he wants to use for all gun laws but the others seem highly skeptical. When Roberts asked Rahimi's lawyer if he agreed that his client was a dangerous person, the lawyer responded that it depended on what a dangerous person was, and Roberts said how about somebody that shoots at people, that's a good start, and the lawyer had to agree that was fair. Jeebus.
Hadn't heard that, but the lawyer pleading his case didn't sound too prepared this morning. I hope his wing-it approach swayed some opinions toward the government's position.
Kentuckian here. It's a shame how the down-ballot races went, but it could have been a hell of a lot worse. As it is, Andy will be able to keep the wild-eyed loons in the General Assembly from running roughshod over folks in most cases. Also, he just might get to appoint Mitch's replacement and that would be a mighty fine thing to see.
I didn't even think about that he'd be able to appoint McConnell's replacement – that would indeed be a mighty fine thing to see.
I'm watching election results now. A couple of national projections have called it for Beshear. I'm not comfortable with it just yet. What is so strange about this state though is just about every other republican is winning. Beshear has a 60 % approval rating so that's a good start.
It was like this last time, too. The Republican candidate for governor was extremely unpopular with everybody, even his own party. Also there is the fact of severe voter suppression, along with gerrymandered districts.
I can't help but consider the race of the Republican candidate may have been a factor in the margin of victory. I know Cameron won the primary, but I will posit that there is a not insignificant percentage of white racist Republicans in Kentucky who will never vote for a black person for anything.
I just looked it up and Cameron won the primary with 47%. That leaves a hefty 53% of Republicans who did not vote for him in the primary and some nontrivial percentage of those did so based solely on his race.
This comment is certainly not meant to take anything away from Beshear who seems to be a very good Democrat in an otherwise very red state. So, I'll just end with a hearty congratulations to the newly re-elected Governor of Kentucky.
I'm sure there were some voters who refused due to that.
And the governor's race wasn't even close (at least with 74% precincts reporting - I suppose it might get closer with the final count).
I hope Beshear pulls it off.
I feel like this is one where Beshear winning means a lot more for Democrats than it will mean for Republicans if the other guy wins (I've already forgotten his name).
It's unreal that Beshear won in the first place, winning again would be a minor miracle.
He did beat Bevin. Bevin was bipartisanly hated
but two horse race! dems in disarray! biden is old! both sides! whatabout... (i mean at this point we could just copy and paste those things from now until the end of the elections, and then do it again for the next election cycle)
I'm absolutely appalled at the usual loud and wrong pundits crapping on Harris by omission, deliberately so. The misogynoir is really awful.
I hope Beshear pulls this victory out. Never count a Republican out and folks in Kentucky make sure people got to the polls. Don't accept any excuses!
Right? Breathless articles about Newsom or Gretchen Whitmer, I'm sure Mme VP is all "I'm standing right here! I can hear you."
Oh and those articles will change in a hurry once those two run, because FUD against Dems is great for eyeballs.
EVERYthing is bad for the dems...clearly.
The same ol' same ol' analysis - it's all about turnout baby - doesn't sell ads or subscriptions.
It may even be an extension of Murc's Law. There must be such a law for this too.
Dear God. Bibi is such a useless, fetid piece of shit
David Axelrod: another indication that MSNBC is really not that into you...
I don't know who is really responsible for Obama's 2008 victory, but these key factors helped decide it:
1) Focusing on picking up large banks of delegates even in states he lost, and in states most campaigns wrote off, which ultimately helped him overtake Hillary. Note: there was also some amazing luck, in that Florida and Michigan (where Hillary had an advantage based on polling) had their delegates disqualified.
2) Obama's own skill in being able to appear moderate and liberal at the same time, enabling him to both reach Dems who were sour on Hillary, and later Dems, Indies and even some Republicans in the general election.
3) Message discipline. It's telling that the only "gaffes" Republicans had to go on were "57 states" and "bitter clingers" and "Jeremiah Wright", none of which got real traction.
4) Focus on small donations and coming back to the well through internet fundraising, and saying "fuck it" about matching federal contributions--enabling a massive money haul that surpassed McCain's.
5) Focus on microtargeting voters through data analysis and coupling this with a localized ground game at the neighborhood level that reached a LOT of nonvoters, which meant winning not just swing states but a lot of reach states--biggest victory of the century so far.
It was a very well-run operation, and sure it did benefit from luck (Hillary's campaign was just a mess of waiting for a victory that didn't happen, Republicans were just a dirty word that year thanks to the crumbling economy and Bush's ratings), but they were well positioned to exploit that luck. Not sure how much Axelrod or anyone else had to do with it, but it'd be nice to see Dems fight like that again.
Also McCain's huge misstep in recruiting Palin. She was a disaster almost from the get go. Yet another fake politician who only wanted to be famous and not effective. See also all the "reality shows" she and he spawn were on.
I always thought the '57 states' comment was actually 'states and territories' but we either have fewer or more depending how we count them, sigh
Yep--obviously that's what he was referring to (the number of primaries, not states) but that shows how desperate Republicans were to find a gaffe. He really didn't give them much.
Funny, I thought in last 'graph you were referring to Hilary's 2016 campaign. Dems sure rely on "it's just my turn" an awful lot. (And before I get set upon, I am and always will be and vote Democrat unless Eric Adams gets the nomination. At that point, we're all fucked anyway and i might as well start drinking again)
The point of people "setting upon" you is that it's still essentially falling for the media narrative. Hillary's CAMPAIGN didn't say "it's my turn" that was other people and the media.
Her actual campaign was about how well QUALIFIED and PREPAREDD she was. She had a website with more detailed policy than any candidate before or since (with the possible exception of some Communist with a manifesto somewhere, but that would only be a volume metric at that point anyway). And she was successfully moved left, at which point the Berners threw the largest tantrum anyone's seen until Trump's election gang, complaining about the "her turn" stuff.
Also she got sandbagged by Sanders which I will NEVER forget.
They helped shiv Dean in 2004 because "it wasn't his turn"... Just sayin'
Absolutely not. This is a lie. Dean was shivved by the media because it was fun to shit on him for being excited
Her 2016 campaign just demonstrated that she and her team hadn't learned a damn thing from 2008--another year they thought it was in the bag, tried to hold a lead rather than actually fight to win, and lost in an upset.
I mean, great that in 2008 it led to Obama's win, but FFS, in 2016 we REALLY needed her to have learned how this shit can happen.
I'd seen someone comment that both of Hillary's campaigns focused on experience, character, and fitness to lead, when her husband defeated two Republicans who tried the same thing against him.
I appreciate when HRC supporters talk about Hillary's website with detailed policy and how qualified she was, but the reality is that this often isn't enough to win an election.
Maybe we should ask ourselves why not
The dumpster fire of an economy was what helped a Democrat win. My Republican mother MAY have voted for Obama in 2008. I think watching her life savings get incinerated during Bush's reign went a long way towards her finally voting for the right person.
It certainly helped, but you can also imagine how Hillary (and later, McCain) could have used that against Obama: "this guy just barely got to Washington, he's young and untested, you need an experienced hand at the tiller" and of course both Hillary and McCain could have said they were also "running against" Bush and the status quo. Obama instead came across like not just an ideas man, but a quick study, with smart advisers and a calm, steady demeanor that reassured voters that he wouldn't be in over his head.
And he surely was not either.
The "Miracle of the Bush Economy," following on the "Miracle of the Reagan Economy" certainly didn't convince people that THE GOP isn't the party of good economies.
Axelrod is dead to me.
Why?
Third way tool.
Can’t someone find a garden in which Axelrod can putter quietly?
Maybe one with enough space for James Carville also? I never need to hear from him again.
Nicky Wallace is taking care of him.
In good news: Orcas sink another boat in Strait of Gibraltar off Morocco
Free Linky: https://wapo.st/477tBhy
Now THAT is news you can use!
Go get 'em, Willy!
I just hope they don't give any ideas to our Salish sea pods. I have zero interest in having that kind of encounter.
I, for one, welcome our orca overlords.
Regardless of their actual motivation I'm still rooting for the whales.
Their actual motivation is identity theft.
You fucking monster.
terrorists!
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
It's not black and white.
Actually, orcas are black and white.
That... never mind.
OT: it is truly a blessed day of celebration
https://x.com/jonfrombuckland/status/1721916656337961119?s=46&t=QTHD9GMfDGpAyfUoOmtJMw
The objectively funniest press conference of all time happened today when Rudy googled four seasons and sent the national networks to an industrial park in philidelphia
He meant to do that!
It appears that domestic abuser and gun humper Rahimi is a bridge too far for the majority of the Supreme Court. Thomas is still trying to drag back the history test he wants to use for all gun laws but the others seem highly skeptical. When Roberts asked Rahimi's lawyer if he agreed that his client was a dangerous person, the lawyer responded that it depended on what a dangerous person was, and Roberts said how about somebody that shoots at people, that's a good start, and the lawyer had to agree that was fair. Jeebus.
That this is even before the court is absurd. If it's not 9-0 I swear to christ...
If Thomas wants the history test for the 2A it should only apply to single shot muzzle loaders
Clarence should also remember that TO THIS DAY there are certain factions of his own party who don't want "his type" to have guns.
Hell, they don't want "his type" to vote.
Also, if Thomas wants to focus more on Constitutional originalism, he should disregard the various amendments.
If he wants to stick to constitutional originalism, his opinion should only count 3/5ths.
If he wants to stick to constitutional originalism, his 3/5th of an opinion should be supplied by Harlan Crow. Wait . . .
I read that Rahimi doesn't even want a gun anymore. It's the NRA steamrolling this puppy.
Hadn't heard that, but the lawyer pleading his case didn't sound too prepared this morning. I hope his wing-it approach swayed some opinions toward the government's position.