Kentucky 2015 - Predictions and Results Thread

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Another great victory for DWS's 0 state strategy.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

We already know a Clinton with a Republican congress is a pretty terrible combination, so it's not like having Hillary win would be that great. If she loses, the Democratic party can get some new leadership that actually wants to build the party, and the 2018 and 2020 elections will be important for congressional and state legislature redistricting.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

We already know a Clinton with a Republican congress is a pretty terrible combination, so it's not like having Hillary win would be that great. If she loses, the Democratic party can get some new leadership that actually wants to build the party, and the 2018 and 2020 elections will be important for congressional and state legislature redistricting.

If you think Clinton with a Republican congress (the senate isn't certain, btw) would be bad, try Rubio, Cruz, or (God forbid) Carson or Trump with a Republican congress. Also, if Democrats squander their opportunity to take back the senate in 2016, and end up with 47 seats or less, the senate probably stays Republican until 2022. Unless 2018 is a bigger wave year than 2008, Democrats won't get the house, either, so Republicans will get at least four years of complete control. GIVING UP ON 2016 IS A HORRIBLE IDEA!

Bill + Republican Congress = DOMA, DMCA, Mickey mouse copyright act, telecommunications deregulation, repeal of Glass Steagall, welfare reform, and other bad sh**t. Of course he didn't need the Republican Congress for DADT and NAFTA.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

We already know a Clinton with a Republican congress is a pretty terrible combination, so it's not like having Hillary win would be that great. If she loses, the Democratic party can get some new leadership that actually wants to build the party, and the 2018 and 2020 elections will be important for congressional and state legislature redistricting.

If you think Clinton with a Republican congress (the senate isn't certain, btw) would be bad, try Rubio, Cruz, or (God forbid) Carson or Trump with a Republican congress. Also, if Democrats squander their opportunity to take back the senate in 2016, and end up with 47 seats or less, the senate probably stays Republican until 2022. Unless 2018 is a bigger wave year than 2008, Democrats won't get the house, either, so Republicans will get at least four years of complete control. GIVING UP ON 2016 IS A HORRIBLE IDEA!

Bill + Republican Congress = DOMA, DMCA, Mickey mouse copyright act, telecommunications deregulation, repeal of Glass Steagall, welfare reform, and other bad sh**t. Of course he didn't need the Republican Congress for DADT and NAFTA.

But the Overton Window has shifted well to the left since the 1990's.  Obviously Clinton wouldn't be as progressive as Sanders, but I think she'd govern closer to Obama than Bill Clinton.

While he's not the best Republican President ever like Bill, Obama has been pretty disappointing. He's failed to stand up to Republicans, and let them walk all over him. ObamaCare left much to be desired. And the Republicans didn't make Obama agree to TPP or push for chained CPI. So I'm definitely not a fan of a candidate that is still well to the right of Obama.

Don't forget that a Hillary general election and actual Presidency will be well to the right of phony positions she's chosen in the primary. For example, everyone knows her opposition to TPP is a fraud.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

A parting message from the outgoing Auditor (and one-time Senate hopeful) Adam Edelen to the Kentucky Democratic Party:

Get used to being in the minority.  

Or words to that effect.

The Democrats need to run on a progressive platform.

In THAT case they will SURELY be in minority. And - for a very LONG time...

Who knows. The last 2 Democratic Senators from Idaho were solid liberals. Like the kind that Vermont liberals would be happy with.