Signifying nothing

There has been much talk today about what Matt Bevin's surprise win in the Kentucky Governor's race yesterday means for Democrats in 2016.  And I'm here to tell you what it means:  absolutely nothing.

Like most Democrats, I find our inability to turn out voters in odd years and our lack of success in down ballot elections to be deeply disconcerting (though unlike many in the traditional media, I admit that we are hamstrung by some brutal gerrymandering).  But yesterday's results in Kentucky do not mean that Democratic turnout in 2016 will be depressed (after our turnouts in 2008 and 2012 as well as having a very formidable candidate in either Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders 2016 is going to be another good year for the good guys).  Basically, Jack Conway ran the same race against Bevins that Alison Lundergan Grimes ran against Mitch McConnell in 2014:  he disowned Obama and ran as a DINO.  And predictably, he got his ass kicked, just like Lundergan Grimes did.

And just what kind of bozo do you have to be to believe that the results in a republican stronghold in the south are going to give pause to voters in blue and purple states?  Because I'm pretty certain that voters in California and Ohio are not going to think, "You know, racism and homophobia work for me!" and vote republican in 2016.

If anything, I think it helps Democrats.  For one, it is a bit of a wake up call to take nothing for granted.  More importantly, though, I think it gives republicans a false sense of confidence heading into 2016 (witness Bevins telling Kentuckians after his victory that Kentucky had a chance to drive the national narrative in 2016--with all due respect to Kentuckians, an insignificant state like Kentucky will never have the chance to drive the national narrative).  Democrats are still the overwhelming favorites to retain the White House, have a better than 50/50 chance to take back the Senate, and though it won't be enough, will also help us to improve down ballot.

In the end, it's all much ado about nothing.

Peace,
emaycee

emaycee's believe it or not

So...in the past few days I have gotten e-mails from Mark Pryor, Bruce Braley, and Alison Lundergan Grimes asking me to send money to help Mary Landrieu in her runoff Senate election next month in Louisiana.

Personally, I think Landrieu has as good of a chance at winning this election as I do, and I don't even live in Louisiana (thank God), so it's just pissing good money after bad politics.   But even given that, does she really want three people who lost imminently winnable Senate races by running horrid campaigns to have a voice in her campaign?  Isn't it sort of like someone with perfectly smooth skin asking three lepers to help her keep it that way?

Swear to God, you cannot make this shit up.

Peace,
emaycee

And immediately a rooster crowed

Twice in the past week, Kentucky Democratic Senate nominee Alison Lundergan Grimes has refused to answer whether she voted for President Obama, on the grounds of the privacy of her voting records being a matter of principle she doesn't wish to violate (on the same lameness quotient as Kerry's "I voted for it before I voted against it.").

While I think it was a chickenshit question (was Mitch McConnell asked if he voted for one of the worst President's in U.S. history, George W. Bush, or for John McCain and Willard Romney, two of the worst major party Presidential nominees in recent history?), and I don't disagree with those who think its both a non-issue and that Grimes should hammer McConnell on Obamacare, Grimes handled the situation about as poorly as humanly possible.  A simple, "Duh! I'm a Democrat!" or in politician speak, "Of course I did, I'm a Democrat--I'm sure Senator McConnell voted for George W. Bush twice, too." would have more than sufficed.

At best, Grimes answer  looks like pandering and at worst it shows a complete lack of political courage.  Yes, President Obama has been less than perfect and is extremely unpopular in Kentucky, but if Grimes can't acknowledge that he was by far and away the best option in 2008 and 2012, I can't imagine that she'd be all that much better than McConnell in the Senate.

And another Blue Dog bites the dust.

Peace,
emaycee

Go tell it on the mountain

Frankly, I've often wondered--as pointed out by Charles P. Pierce in this piece-- why Democrats waste their time on run-of-the-mill TV ads when they could do a montage that shows just how fucking nuts republicans are these days.  Screw the stock footage of their families or walking through the park in shirt sleeves or a pair of jeans--let's put Steve King out there talking about the Mexicans with calves like cantaloupes, or Michelle Bachmann telling America how God doesn't like Obamacare, or Sarah Palin pontificating on the greatness of a fascist like Vladimir Putin.  Tell voters "WHEN YOU VOTE FOR REPUBLICANS, THIS IS WHAT YOU'RE VOTING FOR--FUCKING NUTJOBS!"

There is very little the republican party has to offer to 60-70% of the American public and there is nothing wrong with pointing out that in addition to their utter incompetence, they're also off the deepest of deep ends with a lot of misguided hysteria thrown in for extra measure.

It certainly couldn't have hurt Alison Lundergan Grimes in Kentucky or Bruce Braley in Iowa--they're both on the verge of losing very winnable races for the U.S. Senate by using the vanilla pudding strategy of campaign ads.  Their opponents are nuts--point it out for fuck's sake.

Peace.
emaycee

I'll keep my money, thanks

This is not an exaggeration--I get five or six e-mails every single day from "Democrat" Alison Lundergan Grimes in her race for the U.S. Senate against Mitch McConnell asking for money.  Should I choose to donate, this is what I'll get for my money:

She's not Barack Obama (obviously and fortunately).  She's for guns, coal, and against the EPA.  And she knows how to hold a gun.  Paycheck fairness?  The success of Obamacare in Kentucky?  Nah, vote for her because she can shoot UFOs flung from a pseudo-cannon.

Yeah, right--I'm going to piss away my hard earned cash on a republican-lite candidate.  Fucking hello:  Liberal Democrat here!

You'd think Democratic candidates would have learned by now that when we run as republican-lite, we lose, even in the South.  And this probably explains why Grimes is going to lose (currently Grimes has only a 30% chance of winning) a very winnable race against a very unpopular (54% unfavorable rating in his home state) incumbent in McConnell.

And frankly, she doesn't look any better holding a gun than McConnell does--and either way, it certainly isn't going to solve the problems of average Kentuckians and Americans.

Peace,
emaycee

It's a bitch, Mitch

Seems old Mitch McConnell has had his "47%" moment.  Speaking at a secret conference bankrolled by the Koch Brothers (and don't you just know that "secret" and "Koch Brothers" means the rest of us are going to get fucked), McConnell said that should republicans win control of the Senate they wouldn't mess around with piddly issues like the minimum wage or unemployment extensions or student loan debt, but that they'd focus on defunding Obamacare, gutting the Consumer Finanacial Protection Bureau, and destroying the EPA.

Who do you suppose benefits from this agenda?  It ain't folks like you and me.

How does American not benefit if this pissant is sent packing in November?

Peace,
emaycee