See, Krazen is pointing out your hypocrisy in saying that Grimes will defeat McConnell because of her landslide in an earlier not-federal election when you dismissed his claim in an earlier thread that deMaio will defeat Peters because of his landslide in an earlier not-federal election. The situations aren't identical (after all, deMaio may have won that district by a landslide but he lost overall, which wasn't true for Grimes), but your Grimes-will-win argument is extremely, extremely similar to the argument Krazen put forth in another thread that Carl deMaio will win which you literally laughed down.
And here comes interference, okay, let's do this. I never said that Grimes WILL defeat McConnell, I said COULD, there is a difference, you know.True enough, but you sure seemed quite confident of this 'could' in context. I'll cede you this point, though.
Number two, Secretary of State is a partisan position at the statewide level, anyone who wins statewide by a good amount is a good recruit for higher offices in most states. A non-partisan mayor's race doesn't compare, you've got to be intelligent enough to understand that.
Here I'm going to have to disagree with you. The San Diego mayoral election is only de jure nonpartisan; de facto, the election between deMaio and Filner was actually unusually partisan, and this was what allowed Filner to win. I would also have to say that in the area where the mayoral race was taking place, mayoral races normally gain more attention that statewide elections for offices less than Governor/Senate: I'm confident more of my neighbors could tell me about Mayor Dennis Clough than Secretary of State Jon Husted. Now, for a statewide race like the one Grimes is running in, it's better to have run statewide. But for a House race, like the one deMaio is running in, I would have to insist on it being more advantageous to have run for a very visible local mayoral position than some distant post in the state capital.
Remember how Maggie Brooks was a sure shot against Louise Slaughter because Brooks won big at the local level?
Gotta say, no. I do remember how people said Brooks 'could be competitive' (like you're insisting about Grimes). But Brooks was running in a district far more Democratic than the one deMaio is running in in 2014 and far less Republican than the state as a whole Grimes is running in. (Based on 2012 Cook PVI, Slaughter's district is D+7; Peters' is D+2; Kentucky as a whole is R+13. Broad spectrum there, politically and geographically).
Brooks lost to Slaughter by double digits. Again, Grimes win in 2011 isn't a guarantee she can win a Senate race, but it does mean she can compete. The operate would is "could" not "will", I'm not in here making out as if this race is guaranteed in anyway.
OK, this I can agree with. I rather doubt she'll still be thought of as a serious threat to McConnell after summer 2014 unless the year is really circling the drain for Republicans. Possible, but in a state like Kentucky I think it's very unlikely.
You all are really underestimating just how thoroughly hated McConnell is in Kentucky.
The last PPP poll showed that most voters disapproved of him, 44-47. 'Disliked' that is, but 'hated' it's not.
Meh, I can see Georgia being nastier if one of the more controversial Republicans (especially Broun, but Gingrey too) is nominated. Or Louisiana if a more-conservative challenger to Cassidy emerges. Or Iowa depending on who the GOP nominates. Or this if Grimes can stay competitive into the fall. Otherwise, after Labor Day 2014 when the race is in full gear, little attention will be paid to this and it will be eclipsed in nastiness by somewhere else.
Karen, this isn't South Carolina. I believe Democrats hold all statewide offices and a near supermajority in the House. There was virtually no Democratic Party in South Carolina. This is gonna be a close race, either way.
The Democrats hold a 55-45 majority in the House; as far as state legislatures go, which are frequently dominated by supermajorities, that isn't a large advantage. They do control a vast majority of statewide offices, but the Agriculture Commissioner is a Republican as are both Senators. The Kentucky Democratic Party is very strong at a local level, but you're exaggerating the degree.
Keep in mind Bill and Hillary Clinton are likely to campaign for her, and both are still very popular in Kentucky.
Bill won Kentucky by 3% in '92 and then 1% in '96. They could motivate white Appalachian Democrats, but those tend to be older voters who vote anyway, while I doubt they'll convince many otherwise Republican voters. The Clintons will probably be more useful vis a vis fundraising. Certainly having them actually actively campaigning for you will help in Kentucky, but it's not a magical victory serum.
Yes, another women in the senate hopfully
I'd rather have Capito or Handel or even Ellmers or Stephens.
