I think there's a fairly decent chance the Democratic Gubernatorial/Lt. Gubernatorial primary doesn't go to a runoff. If all candidates besides the top two (of which there are only four now, two of which - Gilbraith and Hensley - don't seem to ever have been seen as contenders and will likely finish far behind the others) combine to receive 20% or less of the primary vote, than at least one of the two leading candidates (which seem likely to be Bruce Lunsford and Steven Beshear) would have to get 40% or more of the vote, which is the requirement to avoid a runoff Gubernatorial primary in Kentucky (either exactly 40% or more than 40%, I assume the latter but the chances of a candidate getting exactly 2/5 of the vote are incredibly slim and there would be a recount if it was that close anyway unless perhaps if a possible runoff candidate conceded as he knew he wouldn't win, although I don't know how that works in Kentucky). In fact, there's a possibility if Miller hadn't withdrawn that someone could still have broken 40% (in that case Lunsford would have had the best chance), although when I look at the last poll Ron Gunzburger's blog on
Politics1.com (taken when Miller was still in the race) the "bottom five" candidates had about 23% of the vote combined and about 30.7% among voters expressing a preference, enough that one of the top two candidates would have to win the first round by about 11 percentage points to get 40% of the primary vote. Lunsford's 29% in that poll
was about 38.7% of the non-undecided vote, although a lot of the undecided voters may have been undecided between some of the more progressive and anti-whomever is the state party chair (I forget his name) Democratic contenders such as Beshear and Miller.
If the bulk of Miller's vote goes to Beshear who was apparently already moving up in the polls and some of the undecided voters also decide on Beshear, the next poll may show results that get Democratic primary voters thinking about the possibility that there may not be a runoff, which would bode ill for candidates outside the top two (although voters who vote for Gatewood Gilbraith might be more concerned with sending a message as voting for Gilbraith seems to be the fashionable way to protest with one's vote in Kentucky in recent years) and well for the top two candidates but possibly somewhat more Beshear than Lundsford (and thus bad for Lunsford considering he probably wants to win the nomination - and the election - more than he wants to get a certain percentage of the primary vote).
In a state with fairly fluid intraparty politics as Kentucky seems to have now (a party traitor only four years ago now leads in his betrayed party's primary!), a 40% threshold to avoid a runoff almost might as well be a 1% threshold or, in other words, normal plurality voting with the candidate with the most votes winning without a runoff. Okay, I'm exaggerating a bit, but my point is that the system could lead voters to think they don't have to worry about supporting spoilers and helping the least favorite candidate among those who really stand a chance win without them having an opportunity to vote against that candidate in a runoff when in fact they could be "spoiling" a tolerable (in their opinion) candidate's chances and allowing that detestable front-running candidate (Lunsford for progressive - read: liberal or democratic socialist - Democrats; Beshear the detestable front-running candidate for Conservative or populist Democrats) to win.
Anyone have anything to add on that subject? Time for bed for me.
