Will Kentucky 2007/2008 be like Ohio 2006?

[Adlai Stevenson]

Earlier in the month I took a look at the political environment in Ohio, concluding from leading indicators like partisan self-identification in polling and results from the 2006 midterms that the state may be turning blue at a far faster rate than we had previously assumed. Interestingly, the same situation might be happening just to the South of Ohio in Kentucky.

Like Ohio, Kentucky has had a widely and wildly unpopular Republican Governor in recent years who, racked by scandal, has begun to bring his party down in his state. And just as Bob Taft's poor standing within the electorate in Ohio helped lead the GOP to disastrous results in 2006 -- losing the governorship, one seat in the Senate, one seat in the House and a number of state legislative seats -- so too might Ernie Fletcher's problems in Kentucky bring about a sea change in the state.

The current polling for Fletcher, who was able to escape defeat in the the Republican gubernatorial primary this past week, does not look good. According to the latest SurveyUSA poll commissioned by WCPO-TV in Cincinnati and WHAS-TV in Louisville shows the Democratic ticket of Steve Beshear and Dan Mongiardo crushing -- and I do mean crushing -- the Republican ticket of Fletcher and Robbie Rudolph by a 62 percent to 34 percent margin. Do remember that Taft, whose approval rating of 18 percent just before the election was fully 20 points lower than that of Fletcher today but his heir apparent Ken Blackwell was at least able to manage to receive 37 percent of the vote in November.

And do not think that a 30- or 20- or even 15-point loss by the incumbent Republican Governor of a state would not have an effect upon the reelection hopes of a Republican Senator running for reelection one year later. Yet Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell may have to undergo this exact situation this cycle. Polling already shows that he might not be able to beat one of his potential Democratic challengers, so the fact that more than a third of Republican voters in Kentucky appear willing to abandon their gubernatorial nominee in favor of the Democratic nominee shouldn't instill much confidence within McConnell -- particularly since there is already talk of a primary challenge being mounted against him.

Democrats not only have an opportunity to give McConnell a scare (at the least) in 2008, they also might have a chance to pick up one or two more seats in the House from a state in which they had already picked up a seat during the previous cycle. Though most of the Kentucky districts currently held by Republicans have decided Republican tilts, two Republican Congressmen -- Ron Lewis and Geoff Davis -- both received 55 percent of the vote in 2006 or less, putting them at least on the radar of the folks trying to extend the Democratic majority in the lower chamber of Congress.

Much will be seen when Kentuckians go to the polls this November to decide if they will keep Fletcher or throw him out. But it's very possible that Fletcher might not only lose in his bid for another term but could be such an albatross for his party that it's difficult for any Republican -- maybe even McConnell included -- to win in the near future.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/5/27/213828/383

[Kevin]

Not likely, I see Fletcher losing, However Mitch McConnell should win reelection by a decent margin. Also unlike Ohio Kentucky you have to keep in mind is a fairly deep red state and even though it voted for Clinton two times in 1990's it has moved farther right over the years. So overall I see only Fletcher being the big loser in all of this.     

[Verily]

Fletcher is not so unpopular as Taft, and Kentucky is not so marginal as Ohio.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Like Ohio, Kentucky has had a widely and wildly unpopular Republican Governor in recent years who, racked by scandal, has begun to bring his party down in his state. And just as Bob Taft's poor standing within the electorate in Ohio helped lead the GOP to disastrous results in 2006 -- losing the governorship, one seat in the Senate, one seat in the House and a number of state legislative seats -- so too might Ernie Fletcher's problems in Kentucky bring about a sea change in the state.

The defeat, even the heavy defeat, of Fletcher would not mark a sea-change in Kentucky politics. It would just be evidence that the election of Fletcher himself (which was off the back of Democratic scandals) and good downballot results in 2003 was itself more a blip than a sea-change.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Republican voters who won't vote for Fletcher probably like McConnell. And the idea of a primary challenge against him from ardent Fletcher fans (such things exist? Jesus...) seems almost mildly amusing. Especially as such a challenge would happen after Fletcher's political career comes to a rather sticky end later in the year.

In theory McConnell (who isn't popular) is beatable, btw, but he is very, very well dug-in and has access to more than enough money to essentially buy himself re-election if he has to. And it's not like he's never faced a tough election either...

I think I've made this point several times before...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Er... what? Lewis and Davis hold the two districts in Kentucky least likely to vote Democratic in normal circumstances! KY-1 and KY-5 are possible Democratic gains in the future though, but have stronger incumbents than KY-2 or KY-4. As far as House gaines go, Democrats in Kentucky have to play a long game.
And the Chandler district could well fall as soon as he leaves it; historically it's a swing district.

And no mention of the State Legislature here? The Democrats do have an excellent chance at making serious gains there in 2008 (surely; these would largely be reversing GOP gains from the previous decade. But you take what you can, right?)

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Also unlike Ohio Kentucky you have to keep in mind is a fairly deep red state

What does that mean exactly? That it's strongly Republican (it isn't)? Or that it voted strongly for Bush? Regardless, redstatebluestate is moronic and deserves to die of pancreatic cancer.
It's certainly socially conservative. Is that what you mean?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, there's been no real ideological change in Kentucky in recent decades. Partisan changes, yes (as old Democrats (not all of them right-wingers either; Natcher certainly wasn't) who held right-leaning districts retired and died, as the Democratic Party swung to the right while also becoming more liberal and as, frankly, the Kentucky Republicans built up a semi-decent organisation) but people here need to stop confusing the two.

[TheresNoMoney]

No. McConnell will still win fairly comfortably.

[Kevin]

No. McConnell will still win fairly comfortably.

The Democrats would do better to pour Senatorial resources into NC or any of the other possible pickups for the Democrats in 08.

[AndrewTX]

I think that Kentucky 2007 will be like the Ohio 2006, but I think that 2008 will be different.

[Sam Spade]

On any points about Kentucky, I just want to parrot everything Al says (except that I think Geoff Davis is stronger than Al thinks he is - that is all)

[opebo]

Regardless, redstatebluestate is moronic and deserves to die of pancreatic cancer.

No, there's been no real ideological change in Kentucky in recent decades.

The second statement is correct, the first, not so.  Kentucky is a prime example of the usefullness of the redstatebluestate paradigm.  The place is unbelievably backward - go there sometime, Al.  I have, and I could not understand the speech of about 90% of the people I met.

Regardless of your irritation with the paradigm you mention it will be accurate the vast majority of the time, and what other criteria can we apply to a theory?

[socaldem]

Rep. Ben Chandler will wait until 2010, at which point he looks set to walk into a senate seat.

In 2008, Democrats should give McConnell a tough challenge.  Plus ambitious Democratic opponents should not be shy about trying to play David to McConnell''s goliath.  After all, a good showing in '06 against McConnell sets the Dem nominee up for a future run, perhaps in '10...

I definitely think Dems have a shot in KY-01 and KY-02.  I think KY-04 is just too conservative for Dems to win.  And I think KY-05 would be competitive as an open seat. 

Of course, I'd like to see the state redistricted so that KY-01 is made into a conservative Democrat-leaning Western KY-Ohio River district and so that the Eastern portions of KY-04 are combined with the western portions of KY-05 to make the state have two solidly Republican districts and 4 Dem-leaning or toss-up districts. 

I hope Dems can get the state senate back and make that type of scheme a reality...

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Kentucky will be ugly for Republicans in 2007, and deservedly so.

By 2008, people will have largely forgotten about Fletcher, and the GOP will do just fine.  1991 was an unmitigated disaster for New Jersey Democrats on the State Legislative level, but they bounced back in time for the 1992 Presidential race (despite the brand still being tarred on the state level)because "federal races are different."

[Mr.Phips]

Kentucky will be ugly for Republicans in 2007, and deservedly so.

By 2008, people will have largely forgotten about Fletcher, and the GOP will do just fine.  1991 was an unmitigated disaster for New Jersey Democrats on the State Legislative level, but they bounced back in time for the 1992 Presidential race (despite the brand still being tarred on the state level)because "federal races are different."

New Jersey 1992 was not good for Democrats.  Clinton only beat Bush by two points and two Dem House incumbents nearly lost their seats.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

New Jersey 1992 was not good for Democrats.  Clinton only beat Bush by two points and two Dem House incumbents nearly lost their seats.

1992 was the first Presidential race since LBJ where Democrats actually won the state of New Jersey.  I'd say that's "pretty good."

The second part isn't factually correct either -- Herb Klein almost [6%] lost to State Sen. Joe Bubba, true, but he wasn't an incumbent.  Frank Pallone did have a close race [8%], but it was still his biggest win percentage ever up to that point.  [He won by 4% in '88, and by 3% in '90.]

I don't consider 1992 to be that bad of a year.  It was the start of the Democratic recovery in counties like Middlesex and Mercer, where Democrats were able to win Freeholder seats again after a two year drought.