(10-18-2014 05:46 PM)RaiderATO Wrote: I think it's a stupid question to ask. They're trying to equate her to Obama, when its obvious she isn't.
It's also a stupid question to dodge. They're trying to equate her to Obama, when its obvious she isn't.
They also asked McConnell If he voted for Rand Paul. McConnell admitted he supported Paul's opposition in the primaries.
Well, actually Paul's opposition in the primaries was the hand-picked McConnell candidate, so of course he voted for him. Anyone familiar with that situation wouldn't have even needed to ask him the question. Paul's primary opposition was/is Trey Grayson. And, honestly, he is a very nice guy (talked to him several times). And he is much more conservative than McConnell. The problem was that McConnell basically forced-out Jim Bunning as Kentucky's other conservative Senator, and wanted his guy, Grayson, in the seat. And did the dirty deal to out Bunning. Most conservative voters in Kentucky decided to vote for Paul as much as a vote against McConnell's ouster of Bunning, instead of a vote for Paul. But, in the end, we got a decent senator in Paul.
However, I'd much rather have had Paul's Primary candidate to run against McConnell in this year's primaries. McConnell is a RINO if there ever was one.
Still, reality is that he's by far and away the lesser of two evils when it comes to Grimes. (I've seen recently that she's been dropping the "Lundergan-Grimes" from her ads, and just branding herself as Alison". She keeps running away from things, for good reason...
Running away from voting for Obama. Running away from her maiden name (and the political baggage associated with it)... No good reason to vote for someone constantly running away from stuff.
(This post was last modified: 10-23-2014 01:18 AM by G-Man.)
McConnell is a very polarizing figure, even among Republicans. So that will hold his % down compared to the generic Republican #s in a statewide race.
But Grimes is viewed, rightly, as Obama's proxy in this election and for that reason alone she cannot win. She can come reasonably close (say 5 or 6 points) but three months from now McConnell will be a US Senator and Grimes won't be.
The main point of this campaign was to force GOP to spend money on a Red-State race with a GOP incumbent. From that standpoint, it was mission accomplished for the Democrats. But in terms of actually getting Grimes elected, that was always a pipe-dream. Anyone who ever said differently is clueless about Kentucky politics.
(10-23-2014 01:14 AM)G-Man Wrote: Well, actually Paul's opposition in the primaries was the hand-picked McConnell candidate, so of course he voted for him. Anyone familiar with that situation wouldn't have even needed to ask him the question. Paul's primary opposition was/is Trey Grayson. And, honestly, he is a very nice guy (talked to him several times). And he is much more conservative than McConnell. The problem was that McConnell basically forced-out Jim Bunning as Kentucky's other conservative Senator, and wanted his guy, Grayson, in the seat. And did the dirty deal to out Bunning. Most conservative voters in Kentucky decided to vote for Paul as much as a vote against McConnell's ouster of Bunning, instead of a vote for Paul. But, in the end, we got a decent senator in Paul.
Right about the end of the primary campaign, I made the mistake of asking Kelley Paul what she thought of Mitch McConnell. Not exactly one of her favorite people.
Funny story, when Trey called to concede in the primary, Rand and his father and brother and several of us were having a deep political discussion on the back patio and Rand had his cell on vibrate, so he didn't realize the call was coming in. Trey then called Rand's campaign manager to concede, and the campaign manager called the house on the land line. Rand said it was the first time he had heard of anyone taking a concession call from his campaign manager.
Latest Hot Rumor: If Alison (as She's now going as) has a Strong Showing, She immediately become the leading Democrat candidate for 2015 Kentucky Governors race. Funding will continue and Clintons will continue to campaign for Her. Hillary needs Kentucky in 2016. Heard this from several sources but have No link. Probably being kept under the table until after November . I can see this happening while Her name is out there with current race.
One of the things that I've seen in several versions is that eastern Kentucky votes republican although the area's residents receive a huge net inflow of welfare. The suggestion is that by voting republican they are voting against their own self-interests by voting to cut welfare. But the income from coal dwarfs welfare, and voting for republicans is voting pro-coal.
I had this explained to me by Rand's campaign staff when I asked then about the number of voters in primary being far greater on the democrat side than the republican. They explained that eastern Kentucky votes in the democrat primary for pro-union local officials, then votes republican in statewide races.
(10-23-2014 08:39 AM)CardFan1 Wrote: Latest Hot Rumor: If Alison (as She's now going as) has a Strong Showing, She immediately become the leading Democrat candidate for 2015 Kentucky Governors race. Funding will continue and Clintons will continue to campaign for her.
Possible, although a gubernatorial nomination in KY will not simply be handed over to anybody.
(10-23-2014 08:39 AM)CardFan1 Wrote: Latest Hot Rumor: If Alison (as She's now going as) has a Strong Showing, She immediately become the leading Democrat candidate for 2015 Kentucky Governors race. Funding will continue and Clintons will continue to campaign for her.
Possible, although a gubernatorial nomination in KY will not simply be handed over to anybody.
Quote:Hillary needs Kentucky in 2016.
What for?
In Most election cycles, Kentucky is one of the first reporting states . Until Obama came along it was a strong bellwether of the rest of the nation. Usually the Winner also carried the state of Kentucky in Presidential elections. The Governor, if She were to win would be the leading Cheerleader for Hillary.Out West,a lot of States are still voting when Kentucky has it's results in.
CardFan1, I don't quite get what you're aiming at there. But suffice to say that Hillary! can amass a strong majority in the Electoral College even if Kentucky goes against her in a landslide.
(10-23-2014 09:25 AM)Native Georgian Wrote: CardFan1, I don't quite get what you're aiming at there. But suffice to say that Hillary! can amass a strong majority in the Electoral College even if Kentucky goes against her in a landslide.
Agree. Historically though Kentucky has always voted with the winner until Obama. Just adds to election night fodder IMHO.
(10-23-2014 08:39 AM)CardFan1 Wrote: Latest Hot Rumor: If Alison (as She's now going as) has a Strong Showing, She immediately become the leading Democrat candidate for 2015 Kentucky Governors race. Funding will continue and Clintons will continue to campaign for her.
Possible, although a gubernatorial nomination in KY will not simply be handed over to anybody.
Quote:Hillary needs Kentucky in 2016.
What for?
In Most election cycles, Kentucky is one of the first reporting states . Until Obama came along it was a strong bellwether of the rest of the nation. Usually the Winner also carried the state of Kentucky in Presidential elections. The Governor, if She were to win would be the leading Cheerleader for Hillary.Out West,a lot of States are still voting when Kentucky has it's results in.
Kentucky's only other examples of female governors haven't worked out too well. One, a "temporary" power grabber when the real governor was out of state, and she "claimed" to be governor by proxy (Thelma Stovall was her name-- a real nutcase). The other, Martha Layne Collins had a husband who profited handsomely/illegally in his car sales business and the corruption was finally called out by the media toward the end of her term.
"Alison's" father is a crook. (She also has a shady reputation when it comes to financial impropriety.) Google Jerry Lundergan. That's her Dad. Very corrupt politician.
(10-23-2014 08:46 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: One of the things that I've seen in several versions is that eastern Kentucky votes republican although the area's residents receive a huge net inflow of welfare. The suggestion is that by voting republican they are voting against their own self-interests by voting to cut welfare. But the income from coal dwarfs welfare, and voting for republicans is voting pro-coal.
I had this explained to me by Rand's campaign staff when I asked then about the number of voters in primary being far greater on the democrat side than the republican. They explained that eastern Kentucky votes in the democrat primary for pro-union local officials, then votes republican in statewide races.
Eastern Kentucky is exactly as described. In MOST counties where coal is an important part of the income like Laurel (one exception is Pike, where Democrats somehow maintain a stronghold), Republicans carry elections. But you have a lot of counties where coal production isn't a strong part of the local economy, and welfare is prevelant, and these folks are strong democrats.
On the whole, the Governor is almost ALWAYS a Democrat. Have no clue why this continues, other than somehow people see Democratic Governor candidates as conservative, when recent history shows they are not.
(10-23-2014 08:46 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: One of the things that I've seen in several versions is that eastern Kentucky votes republican although the area's residents receive a huge net inflow of welfare. The suggestion is that by voting republican they are voting against their own self-interests by voting to cut welfare. But the income from coal dwarfs welfare, and voting for republicans is voting pro-coal.
I had this explained to me by Rand's campaign staff when I asked then about the number of voters in primary being far greater on the democrat side than the republican. They explained that eastern Kentucky votes in the democrat primary for pro-union local officials, then votes republican in statewide races.
Eastern Kentucky is exactly as described. In MOST counties where coal is an important part of the income like Laurel (one exception is Pike, where Democrats somehow maintain a stronghold), Republicans carry elections. But you have a lot of counties where coal production isn't a strong part of the local economy, and welfare is prevelant, and these folks are strong democrats.
On the whole, the Governor is almost ALWAYS a Democrat. Have no clue why this continues, other than somehow people see Democratic Governor candidates as conservative, when recent history shows they are not.
(10-17-2014 12:59 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote: This is the quintessential giant douche vs turd sandwich.
I can't find the thread on where Grimes stumbled for 40 ... painful .... awkward seconds dodging the question of whether or not she voted for Obama. But apparently she was asked AGAIN .... and AGAIN refused to answer. She went instead with she wants to defend the Constitutional right (in Kentucky) of a secret ballot box. Now that's a cheap and shallow dodge. But it becomes unforgivable when you realize that Grimes is FOR CARD CHECK. She wants PUBLIC counting of all union ballots. Holy giant avalanche of painful hypocrisy Batman!
Who said the GOP was the only party lobbing out giant bags of fail to run against bad incumbents. Grimes is the Democratic Sharron Angle. Good lord.
So very true. Did you see her ad where she was shooting a gun and said she was not Barack Obama? Cringe worthy. I am an independent and was going to happily vote for the Libertarian on the ticket, but now that it is close I am afraid I am going to have to vote for Mcconnell. This UK sports show I listen to everyday interviewed him the other day and exposed what an arrogant prick he is.
I was watching The Five this evening, and Bob Beckel actually defended Grimes and her blatant lying, and just chalked it up to "that's politics". That's what disgusts me the most about "liberals", they'll defend absolutely anything, whether it be blatant lying, radical Islam, Obola, IRS targeting, etc., just because it's "their team".
Such a disgusting precedent to set. We all know politicians are crooked as hell, but they usually are at least able to spin their BS. Grimes is just straight up lying. If you're willing to to defend someone that claims something, when in reality they stand for the exact opposite, then we are legitimately hopeless.
(This post was last modified: 10-23-2014 09:02 PM by Kronke.)
(10-23-2014 08:46 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: One of the things that I've seen in several versions is that eastern Kentucky votes republican although the area's residents receive a huge net inflow of welfare. The suggestion is that by voting republican they are voting against their own self-interests by voting to cut welfare. But the income from coal dwarfs welfare, and voting for republicans is voting pro-coal.
I had this explained to me by Rand's campaign staff when I asked then about the number of voters in primary being far greater on the democrat side than the republican. They explained that eastern Kentucky votes in the democrat primary for pro-union local officials, then votes republican in statewide races.
Eastern Kentucky is exactly as described. In MOST counties where coal is an important part of the income like Laurel (one exception is Pike, where Democrats somehow maintain a stronghold), Republicans carry elections. But you have a lot of counties where coal production isn't a strong part of the local economy, and welfare is prevelant, and these folks are strong democrats.
On the whole, the Governor is almost ALWAYS a Democrat. Have no clue why this continues, other than somehow people see Democratic Governor candidates as conservative, when recent history shows they are not.
Ernie Fletcher
Yep. Just proved my point. ONE Republican governor out of the last nine governors over more than four decades.
