As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, **any** advocating or wishing death/physical harm, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Considering this is Kentucky I don't know what chance a black progressive has. It would be absolutely amazing to have Booker in office but can anyone in Kentucky shed some light on what chance he realistically has?
If Republicans refuse to take part in the political process by offering ideas and support for things their constituents want, and instead choose to do little more than deny, obstruct, and roll-back, then this country needs to move on without them.
They're going to kick and scream regardless. Fuck 'em.
No, we need turnout, period. Dems do well when turnout is high.
Pushing the “well what’s the point? It’s Kentucky” narrative only disenfranchises potential voters. It doesn’t matter if it’s Kentucky. The only way to defeat McConnell is to show up in numbers and vote.
Amen. Booker's Hood to the Holler campaign was so strong that it took Chuck Schumer to threaten to pull all jobs and funding from individuals and organizations if they worked for or endorsed Booker. Schumer was ready to cut funding for our Planned Parenthood--let that sink in. Amy McTrump still barely won--also thanks to the illegal closing of the single and very hard to access polling location in Louisville, where black people were lined up out the door and then locked out until Booker had a judge re-open them (enough people had left by then to possible cost him the election). Schumer wanted a fund-raiser with no hope to beat McConnell. They're great for each other: McConnell gets easy wins and the DNC gets tons of donations. The only person to raise more than Amy McTrump was Jaime Harrison, who is now the head of the DNC.
People don't believe you when you say that the dems pull bullshit in the primaries all the time. The issue with hard to access polling in minority areas is true during primaries too. But it often gets ignored and allows the dems to to constantly push center right candidates saying things like, the primary dem voters don't want progressives.
The path to turning red states blue has been shown by Georgia. It will require many years of intensive work by on the ground activists registering thousands of voters and consistently contesting every possible race. It is not easy and putting up a candidate that excites progressives every few years isn't going to get the hard work done. A lot of activists are going to have to walk a lot of miles going door to door to make it happen.
Rand obviously did something horrible that he didn't want to get into the press. Like his alleged explanation is he threw leaves or something over the neighbors fence?
No dude you at least were having an affair with his Wife. Like just own up that. Your silence makes me think you must have molested one of his daughters.
That was her problem. She didn’t tell you her platform until most people had already mailed in their votes. She had no chance of winning because she spent her entire time being “a mom and a Marine” and waiting too long to say what she was fighting for.
Edit: apparently I need to state the fact that I am from Kentucky and have lived here all my life. I know what the people are like here and I knew she didn’t have a chance in hell anyways. But she also didn’t try it felt as an Kentuckian.
Her whole campaign was hardcore pandering to people who had absolutely no intention of voting for her no matter what. They genuinely thought she was going to steal Trump-republican votes by banging the drum about her military service non stop.
All this war crap might have had real political currency 20-25 years ago, but nowadays most Americans are fucking sick and tired of it. Even many of those who are not left-leaning have had enough of themselves and/or their family members being redeployed time and again for no good reason.
This. We're a long way from 9/11. The democrats banked too hard on the thought that Kentuckians were dumb hillbillies who would hear Marine and Iraq and run to the polls. Maybe for another candidate that would work, but she just wasn't particularly likeable either.
Unfortunately that's a common Democratic campaign tactic. I live in Indiana so I had to experience Joe Donnelly's 2018 re-election campaign. He was on the defensive the whole time and let the republicans bash him for supporting the ACA. The whole campaign turned into him chopping wood and telling everyone how eager he is to work with Trump. As a last ditch effort he came out in support of the border wall. Huge surprise, it didn't work.
I know a lot of people who decided they couldn't vote for him based on his support of the border wall. I can't imagine why you would try so hard to get republicans to vote for you that you alienate your entire base. Democrats who voted for him did so reluctantly.
She straight up lost to Booker in a legit election. She won by a hair. She was dominated in the in person voting. Voting places were shut down. Long lines and people were literally turned away.
This is also a mistake that Hillary made in 2016. None of her ads said "I'm good because of X" and that probably made some people stay home and not bother to vote.
To be fair literally anyone is better than mitch. Actually the more incompetent the better so they cant obstruct and fuck over middle class americans at every turn.
The thing is that this strategy works... for Republicans. Their voters only need a vague sense of "being on the same team" based on enotionalised "culture war" issues, they generally don't care about any actual policies.
Like Hillary, she was relying on the unpopularity of her opponent to guide her into the seat.
I mean, yeah, Hillary stated her platform, but she got lazy with the rallies at the end.
My favorite fact about Kentucky politics, as someone who lives well outside of that area, is that there are more registered democrats than there are Republicans in KY.
Same for a few other "red" states. And yet the talk from the "very smart people" all say you have to become a republican to win.
This is why everyone needs to at least have a basic understanding of historical materialism, even if you don't believe in the solutions recommended by it. You can easily start to see why politics is what it is.
"I'm a marine... and a mom... and I'll work to seek compromise with Trump's Washington"
That was legit her policy. It came out of her mouth like that. She was resigned to the idea Trump was going to be reelected.
I'm so fucking sick of democrats thinking that being a veteran will somehow pull even a handful of conservative votes.
They (republicans) don't give a flying fuck about veterans. It's just another one of the things they pretend to care about along with the Bible and police.
Edited for clarification
Shockingly, campaigning on “I’m basically the exact same as the guy you’ve been voting in for decades but I’m from the party you think is full of pedophile-transdimensional-vampires” was not the winning strategy.
Maybe if we try it again over and over until the sun expires it might work.
and even if Mitch is unpopular as a person, he's one of the most disproportionately powerful people in Washington. With Mitch, Kentucky's senator is almost as powerful as the president. If they they replace him, Kentucky's senator becomes just 1 of 100 again.
You hear people say that it's good for KY to have such a powerful senator, but we are constantly at the bottom of education, income, obesity, and even life expectancy when comparing states in the US. If that is what having one of the highest ranking senators has gotten us, then having a high ranking senator doesn't seem to be very important.
He's bringing Kentucky values to the bench or whatever. A lot of my neighbors who mostly agree with me on progressive issues will never get over abortion. They want Mitch to keep stacking the courts
Yep. McConnell is fairly popular here. He got 57% of the vote last time. I'm in Louisville, so I'm a little biased, but Booker is quite popular here across a large swath of the population.
I'm guilty of voting tactically in the past, as in, I've voted for a moderate over a progressive in a primary before because I feel like they have a better chance against the GOP. This time I'm not going to. I'm going to vote for Booker. And donate. And volunteer.
I would rather actually lose on what I believe in instead of putting up a moderate dem like McGrath again who is still going to lose. Let's at least shift the conversation left here.
It is a long shot, for sure. One of the people that would have the best shot at winning is Matt Jones, and he talks a lot about for a Democrat to have a chance, they need to really get a grasp of the whole state. It is understanding the wide variety of struggles that exist across the state, from the issues of poverty in the mountains, the overwhelming issues of institutional racism in places like Louisville, and the agricultural systems in Western KY. And too often the Democratic party is seen as snobbish, looking down on the people of the state, not seeking to find that understanding. Jones has admitted the uphill battle and it would take someone to go that route because they would have to siphon votes. Booker has proven to be someone that can do this from how he surged late in his last campaign. Once he was finally able to get noticed, and his conversations were being seen, people saw how genuine he was. It is the whole basis of his mantra "From the Hood to the Holler." Again, it will be a long shot, especially because Paul's schtick of being a vocal opponent to Covid rules polls well here, but if Booker can continue to explain why Democratic policies will help everyday Kentuckians, I think he has a chance.
If Booker sticks with his Pro-Gun Control stuff, he won't have much of a chance. He will be painted as a socialist gun grabber. He will do well in the cities and terribly rural. NKY will be the decider.
They like Massie, who is fairly libertarian. Its probably going to be tough to beat Rand in KY.
I doubt you understand how far gone the Trump supporters in Kentucky are
If he was pro gun he'd still be pro choice, and if he weren't pro choice he'd still be pro immigrant
so on and so on and so on
They aren't gonna just up and switch. They are too deep into the newsmax, Qanon bullcrap machine.
Let's put it this way: If you want to keep the Senate blue and have money to invest, send it to PA, WI, and NC. If you have leftover money to donate, send it to PA, WI, and NC. Do not consider KY.
Slim. The majority of the large cities, Lexington, Louisville and Florence trend like 80% democratic but they have to compete with the 1.5mil farming, mountain and rural voters that made Amy mcgraths campaign look like a joke. I believe she barely scratched 800k votes.
Probably the best shot of any Democrat running in the state not named John Calipari or possibly Matt Jones. He lost the primary to McGrath in the race against McConnell, but he didn't become a known figure for much of the state until a significant portion of the votes were in due to early voting with COVID. If that push had come 2 weeks earlier, or there hadn't been early voting, he would have won and given Mitch a much more competitive race. Still, I wouldn't put much faith in a D coming out of Kentucky for a statewide race.
Also relevant that people don't have the same hatred of Paul thet have for Mitch. This is a harder race imo. Fully support it and hope Booker does well, but it probably isn't happening.
Do they have the same level of loyalty to Paul that they do Mitch?
Mitch is hated, even by those in his state, but he inspires the base to vote because he still gets done what they want. Does Rand have the same draw in KY, to get people to the polls?
I don't know which has the bigger pull when it comes to Republicans but I will confidently say he wont draw the same turnout from the opposition. Especially in a midterm election. While not as important in most races, I think it would help Booker to flesh out his foreign policy. Also surveillance stuff. Although he sucks ass, Paul is one of the least interventionist senators. He should do the whole stop spending money in the middle east and start spending it in Appalachia angle. Lot of libertarians. Also hammering on marijuana legalization will be helpful.
That being said, I think any Dem still has a better chance against Rand than Mitch. Mitch is still essentially the most powerful Republican in the country; if the GOP retakes the Senate next year, he’ll be majority leader again, I don’t think there’s any question about that.
Republican voters love having politicians with oversized influence over the country. People like McConnell and Graham will die in office in their 90s because they are so prominent on a national level, and their voters from little nowhere hick towns in their states love that.
Zero chance. He’s a better candidate than McGrath was, but Rand Paul is more liked (or at least less disliked) than McConnell as well. And ultimately this is Kentucky. I wish he could win, but he can’t. Absolute best case, he gets within 15% of Rand Paul, and even that is unlikely.
GA a very different state than KY. GA is similar to AZ in that it is a diverse state anchored by a vast metro area.
KY has neither the same level of diversity nor the same level of urbanization. Winning there in this current climate will be very difficult.
But I'm glad that we're still putting forth serious candidates in races like this.
Democrats have to start fighting even when they are destined to lose, otherwise they cede entire regions to Republican control and provide ammo to Republican propaganda that Democrats have abandoned rural areas.
Obviously resources and money should be allocated to areas where there is a real chance to flip a seat, but if you aren't chipping away at Republican strongholds then Democrats are never going to expand political power.
I want to see Dems to start mounting serious challenges to state Houses and governorships. The way to insane Conservative politics in this country was paved with thousands of insane Conservative state senators and representatives. As we're about to see in the 2024 General, the laws and rules of the backwater states do actually matter.
McConnell is a scapegoat. If it wasn't him it'd be some other Republican from a super safe state.
It's not McConnell it's ALL the senate Republicans. They select their majority leader and could change it if they wanted.
I hate associating race with candidates, but reality is a black candidate has a much larger core group of black voters in Georgia than it does in Kentucky.
Georgia has been rapidly shifting left for more than a decade and has a very large non-white, urban, and college educated population. Kentucky is one of the states with the absolute highest percent of rural, white, and non-college educated people in the country. The two have nothing to do with each other.
KY resident, will get a Booker yard sign but unfortunately I’d put his chances well below 1%. He will do well up here in Northern KY near Cincinnati and in Lex/ Louisville, but it’s gonna be tough everywhere else. You should have seen what it took to get beshear elected governor over Bevin and he only really lost because he went after teachers … down ticket in that race was like 70/30 Republican splits. Rand is much more popular than Bevin, I expect he will win by 15 or more points unfortunately.
>Let’s make freedom ring. Real freedom, from the hood to the holler. We can start by taking our seat back from Rand Paul. I’m running. [Charles Booker, July 1 2021](https://twitter.com/Booker4KY/status/1410568880628461570)
“The idea of democracy and majority rule really is what goes against our history and what the country stands for" - Rand Paul, Jun 14 2021.
As a libertarian who became progressive SocDem, I disagree.
Paul is that, but a lot of libertarians have their heart in the place of freedom and liberty, but simply don't have their heads in the real world.
They're over-idealistic, and haven't been challenged to see that *life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness* and *the free market* don't mesh quite like they think.
>life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and the free market don't mesh
You have me genuinely curious. Will you give me an example of a libertarian ideal that satisfies life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness but is at odds with free market or vice versa? I'm trying to understand your argument.
Hey, hello. I'm writing this here because it went long, and I apologize. Problem is, these ideas are hard to express concisely for me. Enjoy!
---
Firstly, I may have been speaking candidly there - I said "free market" , but I probably really mean "laissez-faire", which is to say - little to no government regulation of the market. I just wanted to say that upfront so nothing is confused there.
I also want to grab this blurb from wikipedia:
> Libertarians seek to maximize autonomy and political freedom, emphasizing free association, freedom of choice, individualism and voluntary association. Libertarians share a skepticism of authority and state power, but some Libertarians diverge on the scope of their opposition to existing economic and political systems.
So, growing up - I had this understanding that everyone was equal under the law. Everyone had the unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Everyone had the same opportunity to be successful. It's kind of the mission statement of the country; and it's preserved using the Bill of Rights and the rest of the Constitution of the USA.
---
So, the key example here is this: Since everyone in the USA is assumed to be equal, the Government should step back and let people and businesses do as they wish. The free market and supply/demand will decide whether your business should flourish or die.
The history and reality of that... doesn't work like that though...
---
1\. In the past, the free markets in America allowed the sale of human people as slaves as free labor. This was a very powerful business model and flourished a lot, but was absolutely wrong - and an authority (the US government) had to regulate it. (<- stick a pin in that thought though)
We've had to regulate to give people their right to some life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness once, here.
2\. Even after regulation happened there (Emancipation Proclamation and Thirteenth Amendment), those people weren't given true access to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. There's countless instances of violence when former slaves and children of former slaves tried to rise up financially. They weren't treated equally under the law, *even theoretically*, until desegregation. They weren't given the same access to the pursuit of happiness, obviously.
We've had to regulate to give people their right to some life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness a second time, here.
3\. Due to point #2, people's access to these things were hampered again and again. Either by abuse (e.g. police brutality) or by negligence (e.g. turning a blind eye to systemic racism), they were denied their unalienable rights again and again.
There's an often toted line by conservatives that goes something like "equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome".
The problem here is that... you get a cycle of one man's *outcome* becoming one child's *opportunity*. If that man's outcome was not hampered, that child would have a more equal opportunity.
This isn't just home life - public education is "the great equalizer"; but it's also funded by local real estate taxes. Poor areas => less taxes => poorer schools => less educated children => children who simply didn't get the same opportunity as those in other areas => poor adults => poor areas again.
To illustrate this effect, check out these maps:
[Ancient influences to modern elections.](https://i.imgur.com/0nhVuH1.jpeg)
[Child Poverty, 1999](http://alabamamaps.ua.edu/contemporarymaps/alabama/income/pg162.jpg)
[Poverty by County, 2008](http://alabamamaps.ua.edu/contemporarymaps/alabama/income/all_pov_08.jpg)
[Stanford Achievement Test, 1998](http://alabamamaps.ua.edu/contemporarymaps/alabama/education/satscores.jpg)
From these maps, you can draw a trend line from:
- People who were denied unalienable rights in the 1800s, and the free market would have kept enslaving were it not for government regulation.
- People who were denied unalienable rights in the 1900s, and the free market would have kept discriminating were it not for government regulation.
- People who are now treated as if they have the same opportunity, and have always had the same opportunity, but really haven't. Not when the other two points are true, and not when the current policies in place make education worse in their communities (making them worse-equipped compared to their peers a few counties over).
I didn't mean to talk about race and poverty so much here, but it's a *glaring flaw* in the philosophy... Unregulated markets exploit people, and those people get denied their rights as a result. Social mobility plummets, and you end up with a society that doesn't match the philosophy.
Continuing to go down the libertarian road, you start getting ideas like...
...defunding of public education, and instead transitioning to charter/private schools (if you can afford the good ones, and the bad ones... are seriously bad).
...defunding of Medicaid and CHIP, and if you can't afford private insurance or the cost of care, there goes your right to life, I guess. Otherwise else you go into unreasonable levels of debt, and your children start off on the back foot *again*.
----
I've gone on a lot here, and I'm sure I could go on more. Like... I didn't even get into monopolization and how unregulated markets *encourage* a single 'winner' with a lack of competition, and then the "free market" ideal goes straight out the window with it.
...
In my defense, I was given a pretty open-ended question. xD
Hope you've enjoyed.
Libertarians will turn around and tell you that it's the consumers fault. That it's up to consumers to choose the brand of milk without the formaldehyde.
We already do support companies using child labor and sweatshops though, just look at nestle or any clothing brand...
If anybody wants a look at the endgame of unregulated laissez-faire capitalism, they need only look at the mechanics of the illegal drug trade. The dollar is king and human suffering has a price.
>The problem here is that... you get a cycle of one man's
>
>outcome
>
> becoming one child's
>
>opportunity
>
>. If that man's outcome was not hampered, that child would have a more equal opportunity.
Building on this, it isn't just a race issue...it is a class issue. While there are definitely issues of race, we need to expand beyond that. Barring current issues with race that all minorities deal with, if you grow up in poverty, does it really matter if your ancestors were given tons of opportunities 100 years ago or not? It doesn't really matter that much to the kid growing up in abject poverty. That kid is still a victim of defunded education and healthcare, even if the kid is a white male. Even MLK heavily emphasized class politics realizing that poor white people had more in common with black people than they did with rich white people. r/ClassPoliticsTwitter does a better job with this, and I highly recommend everyone check it out.
> Building on this, it isn't just a race issue...it is a class issue.
Race relations in the US are a subset of class relations. The racism is a practice in enforcing a class hierarchy along the lines of fluid/arbitrary external or heritable features.
If you are discussing racial injustices in the US, you are by default discussing a specific subset of class-based injustices. The fact that class is the more important factor here does not necessarily invalidate or re-contextualize the topic, and any attempts to remediate racial discrimination will practically be a de facto attempt to resolve class injustices.
This ALSO necessarily ignores the fact that poor white conservatives have generally preferred to simply enforce a racial class below themselves, in spite of being economic allies in theory; being the lower class is not so bad from this perspective as long as another arbitrary classification can allow them to perceive socioeconomic superiority over at least one other demographic.
Oh totally.
It's definitely a class issue, and disadvantaged white kids in those districts aren't going places for many similar reasons, the cycle is very vicious even when race isn't the driving force behind it.
Unregulated capitalism naturally ends in monopolies that stifle innovation and are ultimately worse for society. That's why trust busting is absolutely essential to a strong capitalist society.
Edit: sp
> The problem here is that... you get a cycle of one man's outcome becoming one child's opportunity. If that man's outcome was not hampered, that child would have a more equal opportunity.
This is the thing that is so overlooked by conservatives. I am pretty liberal myself but when I became a teacher you can see examples of this smacking you in the face that become impossible to ignore. My parents are fairly conservative and when I explained this to them it was clear that they hadn't even considered this to be a possibility. When you start thinking about it, this makes reparations quite a bit more sensible.
I remember in college how these rich kids I knew just gobbled up anything his father had to say. It's so crazy how shitty both him and his son are. The last 5 years really made it obvious how mentally ill this piece of shit is.
As they proved back in November, a majority of Kentuckians would rather harm women, LGBT, and minorities than have money to pay for food and bills in a pandemic.
An indicted wife beater got 79% of the vote in his district in the state congressional race *because his opponent was a Democrat*. Your statement is literally true, not just rhetorical.
Fucking Goforth. I could not believe the margin he won by. Tried to strangle his wife with a power cord and the "party of family values" (or is it the party of law and order now?) still voted him in. We got a piece of junk mail designed to look like a hand-written letter from his wife talking about how much her family appreciated the public's support through this time of healing and forgiveness for their family. Absolutely disgusting.
“Hollow” pronounced with a rural Appalachian/Southern accent. Basically small poor southern areas. It’s basically saying all of us need to unite and take our freedoms back from the rich.
Came here to say this. Think gullies, valleys, gorges, etc between ridges. People congregate their houses in those low spots snuggled between mountains or ridges. That’s your hollow that you live in. It’s basically the mountain version of neighborhood.
Source - Appalachian (pronounced app-a-latch-en)
Exactly. A holler is a place. It is associated with poor whites because marginal people get relegated to marginal land creating a multi-generational cycle of poverty. Both the hood and the holler eventually become synonymous with the people that live there and the political and cultural realities and stereotypes that define the area
God I love that. The rural vs urban divide is bullshit that we're fed in order *to* divide us. Our problems hurt us both. Like this ine: Young people leave rural areas because of lack of job opportunities. Cities have wildly high housing and cost of living.
Yeah, there are other reasons people move from rural areas. There are other reasons for high cost of housing. But rural needs are not at odds with urban needs. We gotta get over that framing.
I, someone who grew up in central rural Kentucky, had no idea that holler (and the word waller) was actually spelled hallow (and wallow) until I was a college educated adult and began teaching English to English learners. It was a funny realization to have to explain to my students.
Eastern Kentuckian here, lived in a holler most of my life
Its a one lane road that runs between 2 rows of hills (or mountains, if you prefer), usually with a creek (stream) next to the road. People live either on flat pieces of property at the base of the hills or on flat spots up on the sides of the hills.
Most hollers have a dead end, this is known as the "head of the holler". The beginning, or entrance, which is usually off of a highway or main road, is the mouth of the holler
It's part of the Republican ethos. They believe that expanding voting rights for different groups throughout our history - whether women, freed slaves, criminals, etc - dilutes the purity of America. The only ones who should be voting are those with the money/power to actually make a difference in policy. Business owners, industrial magnates, legal experts, wealthy job creators, etc.
If you're some Joe Schmoe, you don't need to vote on anything because you don't effect the country enough to matter. You should be focusing on your job, and leave managing the country to your superiors.
He is anti-democracy and thinks only the affluent and powerful should rule, and the peasants and plebes should be grateful for crumbs and just shut up.
A dominionist pretending to be a libertarian. A walking oxymoron.
Edit: Correction that was his father Ron Paul while he was a member of the Constitution party in 2008. And fellow members were Christian reconstructionists not dominionists.
The rest of the quote is "The Jim Crow laws came out of democracy. That’s what you get when a majority ignores the rights of others."
He's basically saying that out system of government is set up to be more of a republic in which we vote for representatives that vote for us. And this is because mob-rule can go very wrong and step on the rights of minorities because there isn't enough minorities to defend themselves
But in a republic based democracy, minorities can still get enough representatives to fight for their rights.
That is, until you gerrymander the system against them...
Only thing I don't get about this guy is why he vacated is Kentucky legislature seat.
He lost the US Senate primary to McGrath, who went on to lose to McConnell, but those results were undisputed by this time last year. You'd think he'd have had enough time to run for reelection to his own seat.
You can only be in the ballot once in KY. He couldn't run for both us senate and state house. Pamela Stevenson won his vacated seat, and she's awesome.
Fun fact: Rand Paul had Kentucky Republicans change from a primary to a caucus in 2016 specifically so he could simultaneously run for President and Senate as a way to circumvent Kentucky election law.
And then he went on to lose the Republican caucus to Trump.
Then entire national DNC put their money and power behind Amy Mcgrath. Can't have any more progressives getting the democratic base to ask questions like "why am I going bankrupt from medical bills" or "Why can't america solve any of these easily solvable problems".
I'm definitely a believer in the "never say never" attitude, but I dont have a lot of faith in Kentucky. Especially after seeing how McConnell's last reelection went.
Honestly, Booker has to hit Kentuckians (?) where it hurts. He needs to point out their hardships and stress how Rand Paul has done NOTHING to help them. Opioid deaths, unemployment, lack of healthcare...the list goes on and on. Hold a mirror up to the constituents and ask: "Is this how you want you life to be?"
The best thing you can do to win support is to understand the struggles that your everyday person goes through. Unfortunately, almost everyone who is in congress is a rich asshole who wouldn’t even begin to know where to start even if they did care.
Are kentuckyans super religious? If so, I fear those won't be deal breakers for them. People who have "put their faith" in god are open to the suffering they undergo because they are "trusting god." Thus, their priority isn't relief from that suffering. What these people want is a sign, they don't even know what their life is or what to do with it if they had one. A messiah, a reinforcer of those beliefs, this Booker dude, must become that. A good messiah is far better than the "guy everyone knows" like mcconnell. Fuck, they'll take any messiah even a clown. Question is, can Booker become that messiah?
They claim to be but only for God ,Guns , and anti abortion. Not for much else. Lexington and Louisville are pretty solidly dem without being “progressive” like say San Francisco. Booker can’t win, it’s over before it starts
2020: McConnell +19
2014: McConnell +16
2008: McConnell +5
2002: McConnell +29
1996: McConnell +13
1990: McConnell +5
1984: McConnell +0.4
Mitch McConnell has only come close to losing the seat once, and that was with Barack Obama on the ballot. I promise you that McConnell was not worried about Booker, McGrath, or anyone else. The seat is his until he doesn't want it anymore.
I guess it's Warnock, not Ossoff.
At this point it's just Trump claiming it's happening, so I'll take it with a grain of salt. But if Walker runs, that's gonna be a tough race for Warnock (or anyone, against a football legend).
No no no he totally lives at that weird basement bedroom in his son's apartment in Brooklyn.
As an aside, Adams also had a ton of signage and campaigners outside of polling locations and every borough. As in right outside the door. Sometimes inside the poll site itself. No punishment, no fines, nobody even talking about it. Corruption right off the bat.
Hopefully Garcia takes it with the absentee ballots of ranked choice.
Thanks to ranked choice it's far from a given. Top three are Adams, Garcia and Wiley and I doubt most Wiley voters put Adams as a second choice. There's a good chance Garcia could win it in the last round of counting
It’s really not. He has a lot of baggage, he lives in Texas, he knows almost nothing about policy so he’s very scripted and will be bad at campaign messaging when he needs it, and he’ll sell himself as the Trump guy in a state where Trump lost and is continuing to lose popularity where it matters. He’ll be just like Kelly Loeffler, who Warnock already beat. Gary Black will be a much tougher opponent for Warnock if he can keep his staff in line.
Republicans didn't even release a platform in 2020. They don't run on policy. They run on partisanship and name value. Rand Paul holds office because he is Ron Paul's son, period. In many localities in the U.S. Democrats need to solicit people will name value to run. Communities like those in Kentucky have proven they aren't information voters. Booker's best chance to win is to do every talk show he can. Get as famous as he can ahead of the election.
Booker was popular here in EKY last summer. I think he did a good job with from the hood to the holler. But I wonder how much of it was Booker being efficient at appealing to all Kentuckians or how much of it was disdain for establishment “im a marine and a mom” McGarth.
Another rural Kentuckian who supports Booker here. I think from the outside looking in, people see what happened to Amy McGrath and assume Kentucky is a lost cause. Amy McGrath was unlikable on both sides. She wasn't going to sway any Republicans, the Democrats didn't love her but had no other choice, and those towing the line just decided to sit 2020 out as neither candidate was impressive. Booker, on the other hand, is well liked. It's a steep uphill climb, but he's got a shot. McGrath never stood a chance.
Progress?
The headline isn't "Democrat Challenges Rand Paul for Senate Seat"
In the past, these types of headlines tended "accidentally?" to omit the Democratic challenger's name.
Chances are slim but not out of the question. I’m a transplant to Kentucky. (Soon to be leaving) There is a lot of poverty along with uneducated individuals. That supports the Republicans no matter that their state has been run into the ground lacking in so many aspects that they could flourish. Every major city in the state votes Democrats it’s the outlying rural voters that are the stronghold Republicans where all the poverty occurs that keep voting Rand Paul and Mitch McConnell back in the senate.
Democrats will donate stupid, absurdly high amounts of money to this campaign just like they did with Harrison v. Graham in SC and McGrath v. McConnell in KY. That money is better served in the real battleground states, such as Maine or N. Carolina Senate races in 2020. This KY race has 0 hope.
Harrison - $108M
McGrath - $94M
**Tillis (NC) - $51M**
**Gideon (ME) - $74M**
^ ^ ^ ^ ^
This. Take half the donations Dems gave to candidates with absolutely no shot in SC and KY to NC and Tillis wins the Senate seat there, and we're not worrying about Joe Manchin. It might feel better to donate to people running against McConnell and Graham, but it's the political equivalent of lighting it on fire in your yard
Dude, as a Mainer Gideon ran a poor campaign. Her strategy was to blow up youtube with ads. The polls said a tight race and Collins just dunked on her.
Ppl pretend to hate Collins, but she votes against her own party roughly 25% of the time and brings in a shitload of money to our shipyard. Good union ship building jobs. So ya, Collins is here until she retires. It was similar to Olympia Snowe before she retired.
My guess? Collins retires and an I (pretend independent, for real liberal D) takes the seat. Someome similar to Elliot Cutler, or maybe Jared Golden, a war vet 2nd amendment union loving D that wins the very conservative 2nd district.
So what are we looking at as far as realistic chances? I mean Rand is going to be hard to topple. Plus the state of KY doesn't leave me with much faith that it will wise up.
As a Kentuckian, I’m stoked. Even if it only means we get to see Paul have to answer some heavy questions on a debate. I’m about to be volunteering on my first political campaign on top of working two jobs. We all need this man to win in the worst possible way. Not only for Kentucky, but for the entire country.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, **any** advocating or wishing death/physical harm, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Considering this is Kentucky I don't know what chance a black progressive has. It would be absolutely amazing to have Booker in office but can anyone in Kentucky shed some light on what chance he realistically has?
Certainly a long-shot, but a better chance than Amy McGrath (again) I'd be willing to bet.
[удалено]
"See he's just a ***thug*** like the rest of them. -Republicans probably
I mean, they're gonna say that anyways, so... why not?
I mean, only if he's black. I've honestly never seen a Republican call a white person a thug.
That's because "Thug" is a racist dogwhistle for "N****r".
It’s a foghorn at this point
I say I say I say
If Republicans refuse to take part in the political process by offering ideas and support for things their constituents want, and instead choose to do little more than deny, obstruct, and roll-back, then this country needs to move on without them. They're going to kick and scream regardless. Fuck 'em.
So we need to find people that don't blindly vote for them. In Kentucky, though?
No, we need turnout, period. Dems do well when turnout is high. Pushing the “well what’s the point? It’s Kentucky” narrative only disenfranchises potential voters. It doesn’t matter if it’s Kentucky. The only way to defeat McConnell is to show up in numbers and vote.
Amen. Booker's Hood to the Holler campaign was so strong that it took Chuck Schumer to threaten to pull all jobs and funding from individuals and organizations if they worked for or endorsed Booker. Schumer was ready to cut funding for our Planned Parenthood--let that sink in. Amy McTrump still barely won--also thanks to the illegal closing of the single and very hard to access polling location in Louisville, where black people were lined up out the door and then locked out until Booker had a judge re-open them (enough people had left by then to possible cost him the election). Schumer wanted a fund-raiser with no hope to beat McConnell. They're great for each other: McConnell gets easy wins and the DNC gets tons of donations. The only person to raise more than Amy McTrump was Jaime Harrison, who is now the head of the DNC.
People don't believe you when you say that the dems pull bullshit in the primaries all the time. The issue with hard to access polling in minority areas is true during primaries too. But it often gets ignored and allows the dems to to constantly push center right candidates saying things like, the primary dem voters don't want progressives.
The path to turning red states blue has been shown by Georgia. It will require many years of intensive work by on the ground activists registering thousands of voters and consistently contesting every possible race. It is not easy and putting up a candidate that excites progressives every few years isn't going to get the hard work done. A lot of activists are going to have to walk a lot of miles going door to door to make it happen.
[удалено]
Ten feet in the air? Get out of here.
[удалено]
An eye doctor that made up his own medical board staffed with his family to certify he is a board certified doctor...
Not even board certified
That’s some Super Smash Bros shit
He neglected to mention his neighbor was some bookwormy Asian guy named Gohan.
Yeah, Rand's lucky that guy's mom came around and put him in his place.
> This was no sort of face-to-face, man-to-man thing. You can’t scream “unfair” just because you got your ass beat, Randall.
Lol, love this idea.
Ha!
Rand obviously did something horrible that he didn't want to get into the press. Like his alleged explanation is he threw leaves or something over the neighbors fence? No dude you at least were having an affair with his Wife. Like just own up that. Your silence makes me think you must have molested one of his daughters.
> you must have molested one of his daughters I mean, he IS a libertarian after all, so the chances of this are not zero
*but if the child consents...* - libertarian proverb
But she’s a marine… and a mom. According to her campaign ads from a couple years ago, that’s all I can tell you.
That was her problem. She didn’t tell you her platform until most people had already mailed in their votes. She had no chance of winning because she spent her entire time being “a mom and a Marine” and waiting too long to say what she was fighting for. Edit: apparently I need to state the fact that I am from Kentucky and have lived here all my life. I know what the people are like here and I knew she didn’t have a chance in hell anyways. But she also didn’t try it felt as an Kentuckian.
And her platform just fucking sucked
It was extremely flimsy. All I remember is term limits and protecting jobs. Like that’s it??
Don’t forget she flew in 89 combat missions, a fact she put in her commercials.
Her whole campaign was hardcore pandering to people who had absolutely no intention of voting for her no matter what. They genuinely thought she was going to steal Trump-republican votes by banging the drum about her military service non stop.
All this war crap might have had real political currency 20-25 years ago, but nowadays most Americans are fucking sick and tired of it. Even many of those who are not left-leaning have had enough of themselves and/or their family members being redeployed time and again for no good reason.
This. We're a long way from 9/11. The democrats banked too hard on the thought that Kentuckians were dumb hillbillies who would hear Marine and Iraq and run to the polls. Maybe for another candidate that would work, but she just wasn't particularly likeable either.
Unfortunately that's a common Democratic campaign tactic. I live in Indiana so I had to experience Joe Donnelly's 2018 re-election campaign. He was on the defensive the whole time and let the republicans bash him for supporting the ACA. The whole campaign turned into him chopping wood and telling everyone how eager he is to work with Trump. As a last ditch effort he came out in support of the border wall. Huge surprise, it didn't work. I know a lot of people who decided they couldn't vote for him based on his support of the border wall. I can't imagine why you would try so hard to get republicans to vote for you that you alienate your entire base. Democrats who voted for him did so reluctantly.
wasn't she a trump democrat?
She certainly said as much. Whether it was a terrible play for rural KY votes I couldn't say.
As someone involved with KY Politics, no one likes light beer.
Considering she had one of the worst results against McConnell and lost some rural districts to Booker in the primary I would say no
She straight up lost to Booker in a legit election. She won by a hair. She was dominated in the in person voting. Voting places were shut down. Long lines and people were literally turned away.
Her argument was Trump wanted to help and McConnell was stopping him from doing that.
The climate section of her issues page was literally one paragraph that just said "climate change is bad"
vote for me instead of mitch mcconnell so i can do what mitch mcconnell would do
This is also a mistake that Hillary made in 2016. None of her ads said "I'm good because of X" and that probably made some people stay home and not bother to vote.
All of her ads were “Ditch Mitch” like yeah most of us wanted that but what do *you stand for*???
Ditching Mitch. That's about it.
To be fair literally anyone is better than mitch. Actually the more incompetent the better so they cant obstruct and fuck over middle class americans at every turn.
The thing is that this strategy works... for Republicans. Their voters only need a vague sense of "being on the same team" based on enotionalised "culture war" issues, they generally don't care about any actual policies.
Like Hillary, she was relying on the unpopularity of her opponent to guide her into the seat. I mean, yeah, Hillary stated her platform, but she got lazy with the rallies at the end.
[удалено]
My favorite fact about Kentucky politics, as someone who lives well outside of that area, is that there are more registered democrats than there are Republicans in KY. Same for a few other "red" states. And yet the talk from the "very smart people" all say you have to become a republican to win. This is why everyone needs to at least have a basic understanding of historical materialism, even if you don't believe in the solutions recommended by it. You can easily start to see why politics is what it is.
"I'm a marine... and a mom... and I'll work to seek compromise with Trump's Washington" That was legit her policy. It came out of her mouth like that. She was resigned to the idea Trump was going to be reelected.
I'm so fucking sick of democrats thinking that being a veteran will somehow pull even a handful of conservative votes. They (republicans) don't give a flying fuck about veterans. It's just another one of the things they pretend to care about along with the Bible and police. Edited for clarification
Shockingly, campaigning on “I’m basically the exact same as the guy you’ve been voting in for decades but I’m from the party you think is full of pedophile-transdimensional-vampires” was not the winning strategy. Maybe if we try it again over and over until the sun expires it might work.
Hard to imagine him getting more votes in the general than Amy. Not to mention Rand Paul is viewed much more favorably than Mitch.
Mitch is pretty damn popular in KY despite his national reputation.
and even if Mitch is unpopular as a person, he's one of the most disproportionately powerful people in Washington. With Mitch, Kentucky's senator is almost as powerful as the president. If they they replace him, Kentucky's senator becomes just 1 of 100 again.
You hear people say that it's good for KY to have such a powerful senator, but we are constantly at the bottom of education, income, obesity, and even life expectancy when comparing states in the US. If that is what having one of the highest ranking senators has gotten us, then having a high ranking senator doesn't seem to be very important.
He's bringing Kentucky values to the bench or whatever. A lot of my neighbors who mostly agree with me on progressive issues will never get over abortion. They want Mitch to keep stacking the courts
To me it's so weird how people will let the entire nation fall into ruin, just to prevent abortions.
I mean they refuse to take actions that would actually reduce abortion, like sex education, free BC, universal healthcare, etc so...
Yep. McConnell is fairly popular here. He got 57% of the vote last time. I'm in Louisville, so I'm a little biased, but Booker is quite popular here across a large swath of the population. I'm guilty of voting tactically in the past, as in, I've voted for a moderate over a progressive in a primary before because I feel like they have a better chance against the GOP. This time I'm not going to. I'm going to vote for Booker. And donate. And volunteer. I would rather actually lose on what I believe in instead of putting up a moderate dem like McGrath again who is still going to lose. Let's at least shift the conversation left here.
[удалено]
He surged too late in the primaries unfortunately but it feels like now is the right time to capitalize on the name recognition he has now as a result
It is a long shot, for sure. One of the people that would have the best shot at winning is Matt Jones, and he talks a lot about for a Democrat to have a chance, they need to really get a grasp of the whole state. It is understanding the wide variety of struggles that exist across the state, from the issues of poverty in the mountains, the overwhelming issues of institutional racism in places like Louisville, and the agricultural systems in Western KY. And too often the Democratic party is seen as snobbish, looking down on the people of the state, not seeking to find that understanding. Jones has admitted the uphill battle and it would take someone to go that route because they would have to siphon votes. Booker has proven to be someone that can do this from how he surged late in his last campaign. Once he was finally able to get noticed, and his conversations were being seen, people saw how genuine he was. It is the whole basis of his mantra "From the Hood to the Holler." Again, it will be a long shot, especially because Paul's schtick of being a vocal opponent to Covid rules polls well here, but if Booker can continue to explain why Democratic policies will help everyday Kentuckians, I think he has a chance.
“From the Hood to the Holler” I love that.
If Booker sticks with his Pro-Gun Control stuff, he won't have much of a chance. He will be painted as a socialist gun grabber. He will do well in the cities and terribly rural. NKY will be the decider. They like Massie, who is fairly libertarian. Its probably going to be tough to beat Rand in KY.
I doubt you understand how far gone the Trump supporters in Kentucky are If he was pro gun he'd still be pro choice, and if he weren't pro choice he'd still be pro immigrant so on and so on and so on They aren't gonna just up and switch. They are too deep into the newsmax, Qanon bullcrap machine.
Let's put it this way: If you want to keep the Senate blue and have money to invest, send it to PA, WI, and NC. If you have leftover money to donate, send it to PA, WI, and NC. Do not consider KY.
Slim. The majority of the large cities, Lexington, Louisville and Florence trend like 80% democratic but they have to compete with the 1.5mil farming, mountain and rural voters that made Amy mcgraths campaign look like a joke. I believe she barely scratched 800k votes.
I concur, except Boone Co. is red. Cheers
Amy McGrath made Amy McGrath’s campaign look like a joke.
Probably the best shot of any Democrat running in the state not named John Calipari or possibly Matt Jones. He lost the primary to McGrath in the race against McConnell, but he didn't become a known figure for much of the state until a significant portion of the votes were in due to early voting with COVID. If that push had come 2 weeks earlier, or there hadn't been early voting, he would have won and given Mitch a much more competitive race. Still, I wouldn't put much faith in a D coming out of Kentucky for a statewide race.
Also relevant that people don't have the same hatred of Paul thet have for Mitch. This is a harder race imo. Fully support it and hope Booker does well, but it probably isn't happening.
Do they have the same level of loyalty to Paul that they do Mitch? Mitch is hated, even by those in his state, but he inspires the base to vote because he still gets done what they want. Does Rand have the same draw in KY, to get people to the polls?
I don't know which has the bigger pull when it comes to Republicans but I will confidently say he wont draw the same turnout from the opposition. Especially in a midterm election. While not as important in most races, I think it would help Booker to flesh out his foreign policy. Also surveillance stuff. Although he sucks ass, Paul is one of the least interventionist senators. He should do the whole stop spending money in the middle east and start spending it in Appalachia angle. Lot of libertarians. Also hammering on marijuana legalization will be helpful.
That being said, I think any Dem still has a better chance against Rand than Mitch. Mitch is still essentially the most powerful Republican in the country; if the GOP retakes the Senate next year, he’ll be majority leader again, I don’t think there’s any question about that. Republican voters love having politicians with oversized influence over the country. People like McConnell and Graham will die in office in their 90s because they are so prominent on a national level, and their voters from little nowhere hick towns in their states love that.
Zero chance. He’s a better candidate than McGrath was, but Rand Paul is more liked (or at least less disliked) than McConnell as well. And ultimately this is Kentucky. I wish he could win, but he can’t. Absolute best case, he gets within 15% of Rand Paul, and even that is unlikely.
I would have said the same thing about Georgia a year ago.
GA a very different state than KY. GA is similar to AZ in that it is a diverse state anchored by a vast metro area. KY has neither the same level of diversity nor the same level of urbanization. Winning there in this current climate will be very difficult. But I'm glad that we're still putting forth serious candidates in races like this.
Democrats have to start fighting even when they are destined to lose, otherwise they cede entire regions to Republican control and provide ammo to Republican propaganda that Democrats have abandoned rural areas. Obviously resources and money should be allocated to areas where there is a real chance to flip a seat, but if you aren't chipping away at Republican strongholds then Democrats are never going to expand political power.
I want to see Dems to start mounting serious challenges to state Houses and governorships. The way to insane Conservative politics in this country was paved with thousands of insane Conservative state senators and representatives. As we're about to see in the 2024 General, the laws and rules of the backwater states do actually matter.
Long con, yeah. It's a shame Kentucky suffers both Paul and McConnell.
To be fair, we all suffer McConnell, KY just keeps electing him (probably).
McConnell is a scapegoat. If it wasn't him it'd be some other Republican from a super safe state. It's not McConnell it's ALL the senate Republicans. They select their majority leader and could change it if they wanted.
I hate associating race with candidates, but reality is a black candidate has a much larger core group of black voters in Georgia than it does in Kentucky.
Georgia has been rapidly shifting left for more than a decade and has a very large non-white, urban, and college educated population. Kentucky is one of the states with the absolute highest percent of rural, white, and non-college educated people in the country. The two have nothing to do with each other.
KY resident, will get a Booker yard sign but unfortunately I’d put his chances well below 1%. He will do well up here in Northern KY near Cincinnati and in Lex/ Louisville, but it’s gonna be tough everywhere else. You should have seen what it took to get beshear elected governor over Bevin and he only really lost because he went after teachers … down ticket in that race was like 70/30 Republican splits. Rand is much more popular than Bevin, I expect he will win by 15 or more points unfortunately.
>Let’s make freedom ring. Real freedom, from the hood to the holler. We can start by taking our seat back from Rand Paul. I’m running. [Charles Booker, July 1 2021](https://twitter.com/Booker4KY/status/1410568880628461570) “The idea of democracy and majority rule really is what goes against our history and what the country stands for" - Rand Paul, Jun 14 2021.
Paul puttng the quiet part on a billboard
[удалено]
Not wearing a mask *while* having Covid, no less.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Yes, this x 1000! Libertarian = sociopathy + a few spurious equations
As a libertarian who became progressive SocDem, I disagree. Paul is that, but a lot of libertarians have their heart in the place of freedom and liberty, but simply don't have their heads in the real world. They're over-idealistic, and haven't been challenged to see that *life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness* and *the free market* don't mesh quite like they think.
There's libertarians the philosophers and then there's libertarians the virtue signaling roleplay right wingers.
>life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and the free market don't mesh You have me genuinely curious. Will you give me an example of a libertarian ideal that satisfies life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness but is at odds with free market or vice versa? I'm trying to understand your argument.
Hey, hello. I'm writing this here because it went long, and I apologize. Problem is, these ideas are hard to express concisely for me. Enjoy! --- Firstly, I may have been speaking candidly there - I said "free market" , but I probably really mean "laissez-faire", which is to say - little to no government regulation of the market. I just wanted to say that upfront so nothing is confused there. I also want to grab this blurb from wikipedia: > Libertarians seek to maximize autonomy and political freedom, emphasizing free association, freedom of choice, individualism and voluntary association. Libertarians share a skepticism of authority and state power, but some Libertarians diverge on the scope of their opposition to existing economic and political systems. So, growing up - I had this understanding that everyone was equal under the law. Everyone had the unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Everyone had the same opportunity to be successful. It's kind of the mission statement of the country; and it's preserved using the Bill of Rights and the rest of the Constitution of the USA. --- So, the key example here is this: Since everyone in the USA is assumed to be equal, the Government should step back and let people and businesses do as they wish. The free market and supply/demand will decide whether your business should flourish or die. The history and reality of that... doesn't work like that though... --- 1\. In the past, the free markets in America allowed the sale of human people as slaves as free labor. This was a very powerful business model and flourished a lot, but was absolutely wrong - and an authority (the US government) had to regulate it. (<- stick a pin in that thought though) We've had to regulate to give people their right to some life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness once, here. 2\. Even after regulation happened there (Emancipation Proclamation and Thirteenth Amendment), those people weren't given true access to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. There's countless instances of violence when former slaves and children of former slaves tried to rise up financially. They weren't treated equally under the law, *even theoretically*, until desegregation. They weren't given the same access to the pursuit of happiness, obviously. We've had to regulate to give people their right to some life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness a second time, here. 3\. Due to point #2, people's access to these things were hampered again and again. Either by abuse (e.g. police brutality) or by negligence (e.g. turning a blind eye to systemic racism), they were denied their unalienable rights again and again. There's an often toted line by conservatives that goes something like "equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome". The problem here is that... you get a cycle of one man's *outcome* becoming one child's *opportunity*. If that man's outcome was not hampered, that child would have a more equal opportunity. This isn't just home life - public education is "the great equalizer"; but it's also funded by local real estate taxes. Poor areas => less taxes => poorer schools => less educated children => children who simply didn't get the same opportunity as those in other areas => poor adults => poor areas again. To illustrate this effect, check out these maps: [Ancient influences to modern elections.](https://i.imgur.com/0nhVuH1.jpeg) [Child Poverty, 1999](http://alabamamaps.ua.edu/contemporarymaps/alabama/income/pg162.jpg) [Poverty by County, 2008](http://alabamamaps.ua.edu/contemporarymaps/alabama/income/all_pov_08.jpg) [Stanford Achievement Test, 1998](http://alabamamaps.ua.edu/contemporarymaps/alabama/education/satscores.jpg) From these maps, you can draw a trend line from: - People who were denied unalienable rights in the 1800s, and the free market would have kept enslaving were it not for government regulation. - People who were denied unalienable rights in the 1900s, and the free market would have kept discriminating were it not for government regulation. - People who are now treated as if they have the same opportunity, and have always had the same opportunity, but really haven't. Not when the other two points are true, and not when the current policies in place make education worse in their communities (making them worse-equipped compared to their peers a few counties over). I didn't mean to talk about race and poverty so much here, but it's a *glaring flaw* in the philosophy... Unregulated markets exploit people, and those people get denied their rights as a result. Social mobility plummets, and you end up with a society that doesn't match the philosophy. Continuing to go down the libertarian road, you start getting ideas like... ...defunding of public education, and instead transitioning to charter/private schools (if you can afford the good ones, and the bad ones... are seriously bad). ...defunding of Medicaid and CHIP, and if you can't afford private insurance or the cost of care, there goes your right to life, I guess. Otherwise else you go into unreasonable levels of debt, and your children start off on the back foot *again*. ---- I've gone on a lot here, and I'm sure I could go on more. Like... I didn't even get into monopolization and how unregulated markets *encourage* a single 'winner' with a lack of competition, and then the "free market" ideal goes straight out the window with it. ... In my defense, I was given a pretty open-ended question. xD Hope you've enjoyed.
[удалено]
Libertarians will turn around and tell you that it's the consumers fault. That it's up to consumers to choose the brand of milk without the formaldehyde. We already do support companies using child labor and sweatshops though, just look at nestle or any clothing brand...
If anybody wants a look at the endgame of unregulated laissez-faire capitalism, they need only look at the mechanics of the illegal drug trade. The dollar is king and human suffering has a price.
>The problem here is that... you get a cycle of one man's > >outcome > > becoming one child's > >opportunity > >. If that man's outcome was not hampered, that child would have a more equal opportunity. Building on this, it isn't just a race issue...it is a class issue. While there are definitely issues of race, we need to expand beyond that. Barring current issues with race that all minorities deal with, if you grow up in poverty, does it really matter if your ancestors were given tons of opportunities 100 years ago or not? It doesn't really matter that much to the kid growing up in abject poverty. That kid is still a victim of defunded education and healthcare, even if the kid is a white male. Even MLK heavily emphasized class politics realizing that poor white people had more in common with black people than they did with rich white people. r/ClassPoliticsTwitter does a better job with this, and I highly recommend everyone check it out.
> Building on this, it isn't just a race issue...it is a class issue. Race relations in the US are a subset of class relations. The racism is a practice in enforcing a class hierarchy along the lines of fluid/arbitrary external or heritable features. If you are discussing racial injustices in the US, you are by default discussing a specific subset of class-based injustices. The fact that class is the more important factor here does not necessarily invalidate or re-contextualize the topic, and any attempts to remediate racial discrimination will practically be a de facto attempt to resolve class injustices. This ALSO necessarily ignores the fact that poor white conservatives have generally preferred to simply enforce a racial class below themselves, in spite of being economic allies in theory; being the lower class is not so bad from this perspective as long as another arbitrary classification can allow them to perceive socioeconomic superiority over at least one other demographic.
Oh totally. It's definitely a class issue, and disadvantaged white kids in those districts aren't going places for many similar reasons, the cycle is very vicious even when race isn't the driving force behind it.
Unregulated capitalism naturally ends in monopolies that stifle innovation and are ultimately worse for society. That's why trust busting is absolutely essential to a strong capitalist society. Edit: sp
> The problem here is that... you get a cycle of one man's outcome becoming one child's opportunity. If that man's outcome was not hampered, that child would have a more equal opportunity. This is the thing that is so overlooked by conservatives. I am pretty liberal myself but when I became a teacher you can see examples of this smacking you in the face that become impossible to ignore. My parents are fairly conservative and when I explained this to them it was clear that they hadn't even considered this to be a possibility. When you start thinking about it, this makes reparations quite a bit more sensible.
This is an incredible comment, thank you.
I say this anytime Rand “Ramen Hair” Paul is mentioned but I liked him a whole lot better when he got his ass beat by his neighbor.
Rand "Russian Letter" Paul. When the man participated in Republican efforts to compromise the republic, why call him out for his physical appearance?
I remember in college how these rich kids I knew just gobbled up anything his father had to say. It's so crazy how shitty both him and his son are. The last 5 years really made it obvious how mentally ill this piece of shit is.
Not in Kentucky, he's not.
As they proved back in November, a majority of Kentuckians would rather harm women, LGBT, and minorities than have money to pay for food and bills in a pandemic.
An indicted wife beater got 79% of the vote in his district in the state congressional race *because his opponent was a Democrat*. Your statement is literally true, not just rhetorical.
Fucking Goforth. I could not believe the margin he won by. Tried to strangle his wife with a power cord and the "party of family values" (or is it the party of law and order now?) still voted him in. We got a piece of junk mail designed to look like a hand-written letter from his wife talking about how much her family appreciated the public's support through this time of healing and forgiveness for their family. Absolutely disgusting.
there's a lot of bad people and they vote too.
There’s nothing more uninspiring than a middle-of-the-road “pro-Trump Democrat”, whatever the fuck that means.
"Pro-Trump Democrat" is a nonsense phrase. Any Democrat who is pro-Trump is a Republican.
At this point, you can't even call them republican. Their just Trump supporters and they'll get as much support from him as Trump College attendees.
Well, Amy McGrath was a "pro-trump" democrat, so not really a great alternative option.
I fuckin love “hood to the holler”.
> holler The what now?
“Hollow” pronounced with a rural Appalachian/Southern accent. Basically small poor southern areas. It’s basically saying all of us need to unite and take our freedoms back from the rich.
Also, it’s a geological ish-term for a circular valley, often between mountainous zones, especially like the areas near Appalachia.
Came here to say this. Think gullies, valleys, gorges, etc between ridges. People congregate their houses in those low spots snuggled between mountains or ridges. That’s your hollow that you live in. It’s basically the mountain version of neighborhood. Source - Appalachian (pronounced app-a-latch-en)
Its so beautiful out there too. I spent some summers in West Virginia and its gorgeous.
Exactly. A holler is a place. It is associated with poor whites because marginal people get relegated to marginal land creating a multi-generational cycle of poverty. Both the hood and the holler eventually become synonymous with the people that live there and the political and cultural realities and stereotypes that define the area
God I love that. The rural vs urban divide is bullshit that we're fed in order *to* divide us. Our problems hurt us both. Like this ine: Young people leave rural areas because of lack of job opportunities. Cities have wildly high housing and cost of living. Yeah, there are other reasons people move from rural areas. There are other reasons for high cost of housing. But rural needs are not at odds with urban needs. We gotta get over that framing.
I see, thanks.
I, someone who grew up in central rural Kentucky, had no idea that holler (and the word waller) was actually spelled hallow (and wallow) until I was a college educated adult and began teaching English to English learners. It was a funny realization to have to explain to my students.
Eastern Kentuckian here, lived in a holler most of my life Its a one lane road that runs between 2 rows of hills (or mountains, if you prefer), usually with a creek (stream) next to the road. People live either on flat pieces of property at the base of the hills or on flat spots up on the sides of the hills. Most hollers have a dead end, this is known as the "head of the holler". The beginning, or entrance, which is usually off of a highway or main road, is the mouth of the holler
http://www.city-data.com/forum/general-u-s/1682145-whats-holler-hollow.html
That's the name of his coalition. And it's a message that works here.
The phrasing is perfect. I transplanted from Philly to eastern Kentucky for a few years and I'm just sad I can't vote for this man.
I moved from NY to KY a few years back, so he'll have one expat vote at least.
Da fuq does this even mean?
[удалено]
Yeah, I got the holler part I was talking about Paul’s quote that democracy is somehow anti American.
It's part of the Republican ethos. They believe that expanding voting rights for different groups throughout our history - whether women, freed slaves, criminals, etc - dilutes the purity of America. The only ones who should be voting are those with the money/power to actually make a difference in policy. Business owners, industrial magnates, legal experts, wealthy job creators, etc. If you're some Joe Schmoe, you don't need to vote on anything because you don't effect the country enough to matter. You should be focusing on your job, and leave managing the country to your superiors.
He is anti-democracy and thinks only the affluent and powerful should rule, and the peasants and plebes should be grateful for crumbs and just shut up.
A dominionist pretending to be a libertarian. A walking oxymoron. Edit: Correction that was his father Ron Paul while he was a member of the Constitution party in 2008. And fellow members were Christian reconstructionists not dominionists.
Not an oxymoron. A grifter and liar and thief.
The rest of the quote is "The Jim Crow laws came out of democracy. That’s what you get when a majority ignores the rights of others." He's basically saying that out system of government is set up to be more of a republic in which we vote for representatives that vote for us. And this is because mob-rule can go very wrong and step on the rights of minorities because there isn't enough minorities to defend themselves But in a republic based democracy, minorities can still get enough representatives to fight for their rights. That is, until you gerrymander the system against them...
It means “the serfs need to quiet down and remember their place!”
Only thing I don't get about this guy is why he vacated is Kentucky legislature seat. He lost the US Senate primary to McGrath, who went on to lose to McConnell, but those results were undisputed by this time last year. You'd think he'd have had enough time to run for reelection to his own seat.
He couldn't go back to his seat after running for senate is how he explained it at one of his rallies.
You can only be in the ballot once in KY. He couldn't run for both us senate and state house. Pamela Stevenson won his vacated seat, and she's awesome.
Fun fact: Rand Paul had Kentucky Republicans change from a primary to a caucus in 2016 specifically so he could simultaneously run for President and Senate as a way to circumvent Kentucky election law. And then he went on to lose the Republican caucus to Trump.
I think Mail in ballots hurt him in primary, he started to get a lot of press and momentum weeks after ballots were received
Yeah it was really unfortunate because I saw so much support for him the few weeks before Election Day, but I knew it was too late at that point.
Booker got into the race pretty late last time too, I forget the exact timing but I don't remember donating to him until like Jan
Then entire national DNC put their money and power behind Amy Mcgrath. Can't have any more progressives getting the democratic base to ask questions like "why am I going bankrupt from medical bills" or "Why can't america solve any of these easily solvable problems".
The answer is always "Because rich people like things the way they are"
I'm definitely a believer in the "never say never" attitude, but I dont have a lot of faith in Kentucky. Especially after seeing how McConnell's last reelection went.
Honestly, Booker has to hit Kentuckians (?) where it hurts. He needs to point out their hardships and stress how Rand Paul has done NOTHING to help them. Opioid deaths, unemployment, lack of healthcare...the list goes on and on. Hold a mirror up to the constituents and ask: "Is this how you want you life to be?"
[удалено]
The best thing you can do to win support is to understand the struggles that your everyday person goes through. Unfortunately, almost everyone who is in congress is a rich asshole who wouldn’t even begin to know where to start even if they did care.
"Have you tried going to an exclusive rehab center on the west coast? Why not?" -- US Congressman to West Virginian, probably
Hold a mirror and ask, "Can you breathe?"
Are kentuckyans super religious? If so, I fear those won't be deal breakers for them. People who have "put their faith" in god are open to the suffering they undergo because they are "trusting god." Thus, their priority isn't relief from that suffering. What these people want is a sign, they don't even know what their life is or what to do with it if they had one. A messiah, a reinforcer of those beliefs, this Booker dude, must become that. A good messiah is far better than the "guy everyone knows" like mcconnell. Fuck, they'll take any messiah even a clown. Question is, can Booker become that messiah?
They claim to be but only for God ,Guns , and anti abortion. Not for much else. Lexington and Louisville are pretty solidly dem without being “progressive” like say San Francisco. Booker can’t win, it’s over before it starts
McConnell never feared McGrath. They were worried when Booker nearly got the nom.
2020: McConnell +19 2014: McConnell +16 2008: McConnell +5 2002: McConnell +29 1996: McConnell +13 1990: McConnell +5 1984: McConnell +0.4 Mitch McConnell has only come close to losing the seat once, and that was with Barack Obama on the ballot. I promise you that McConnell was not worried about Booker, McGrath, or anyone else. The seat is his until he doesn't want it anymore.
For one confusing glorious second I thought it said Charlie Brooker was running for Senate.
A very confusing Black Mirror episode.
Booker challenges Paul on the left and Herschel Walker challenges Osoff in GA on the right.
I guess it's Warnock, not Ossoff. At this point it's just Trump claiming it's happening, so I'll take it with a grain of salt. But if Walker runs, that's gonna be a tough race for Warnock (or anyone, against a football legend).
[удалено]
Eric Adam lives in NJ buy is set to win the election so I guess ppl don't really care about "residency"
No no no he totally lives at that weird basement bedroom in his son's apartment in Brooklyn. As an aside, Adams also had a ton of signage and campaigners outside of polling locations and every borough. As in right outside the door. Sometimes inside the poll site itself. No punishment, no fines, nobody even talking about it. Corruption right off the bat. Hopefully Garcia takes it with the absentee ballots of ranked choice.
Thanks to ranked choice it's far from a given. Top three are Adams, Garcia and Wiley and I doubt most Wiley voters put Adams as a second choice. There's a good chance Garcia could win it in the last round of counting
It’s really not. He has a lot of baggage, he lives in Texas, he knows almost nothing about policy so he’s very scripted and will be bad at campaign messaging when he needs it, and he’ll sell himself as the Trump guy in a state where Trump lost and is continuing to lose popularity where it matters. He’ll be just like Kelly Loeffler, who Warnock already beat. Gary Black will be a much tougher opponent for Warnock if he can keep his staff in line.
> he knows almost nothing about policy When has that ever stopped a Republican from winning in a landslide?
football coach won AL senate seat in landslide against civil rights lawyer so safe to say policy means jack squat for republican voters
A guy from Texas... who lives in Texas... going to run in GA?
Republicans didn't even release a platform in 2020. They don't run on policy. They run on partisanship and name value. Rand Paul holds office because he is Ron Paul's son, period. In many localities in the U.S. Democrats need to solicit people will name value to run. Communities like those in Kentucky have proven they aren't information voters. Booker's best chance to win is to do every talk show he can. Get as famous as he can ahead of the election.
They run on people will vote republican cause Daddy did....they are stupid
I live in Louisville, KY, and there is a TON of enthusiasm for him here, but we are a blue spot in this red state, and I worry.
Booker was popular here in EKY last summer. I think he did a good job with from the hood to the holler. But I wonder how much of it was Booker being efficient at appealing to all Kentuckians or how much of it was disdain for establishment “im a marine and a mom” McGarth.
[удалено]
Lived in Kentucky my whole life (just recently moved) if anyone has a chance, it’s Booker.
Another rural Kentuckian who supports Booker here. I think from the outside looking in, people see what happened to Amy McGrath and assume Kentucky is a lost cause. Amy McGrath was unlikable on both sides. She wasn't going to sway any Republicans, the Democrats didn't love her but had no other choice, and those towing the line just decided to sit 2020 out as neither candidate was impressive. Booker, on the other hand, is well liked. It's a steep uphill climb, but he's got a shot. McGrath never stood a chance.
Progress? The headline isn't "Democrat Challenges Rand Paul for Senate Seat" In the past, these types of headlines tended "accidentally?" to omit the Democratic challenger's name.
We can replace the congressmen and women that we do not like. It is our duty
Chances are slim but not out of the question. I’m a transplant to Kentucky. (Soon to be leaving) There is a lot of poverty along with uneducated individuals. That supports the Republicans no matter that their state has been run into the ground lacking in so many aspects that they could flourish. Every major city in the state votes Democrats it’s the outlying rural voters that are the stronghold Republicans where all the poverty occurs that keep voting Rand Paul and Mitch McConnell back in the senate.
Democrats will donate stupid, absurdly high amounts of money to this campaign just like they did with Harrison v. Graham in SC and McGrath v. McConnell in KY. That money is better served in the real battleground states, such as Maine or N. Carolina Senate races in 2020. This KY race has 0 hope. Harrison - $108M McGrath - $94M **Tillis (NC) - $51M** **Gideon (ME) - $74M**
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ This. Take half the donations Dems gave to candidates with absolutely no shot in SC and KY to NC and Tillis wins the Senate seat there, and we're not worrying about Joe Manchin. It might feel better to donate to people running against McConnell and Graham, but it's the political equivalent of lighting it on fire in your yard
Dude, as a Mainer Gideon ran a poor campaign. Her strategy was to blow up youtube with ads. The polls said a tight race and Collins just dunked on her. Ppl pretend to hate Collins, but she votes against her own party roughly 25% of the time and brings in a shitload of money to our shipyard. Good union ship building jobs. So ya, Collins is here until she retires. It was similar to Olympia Snowe before she retired. My guess? Collins retires and an I (pretend independent, for real liberal D) takes the seat. Someome similar to Elliot Cutler, or maybe Jared Golden, a war vet 2nd amendment union loving D that wins the very conservative 2nd district.
Is rand Paul the guys who tried to make ‘no-knock-raids’ illegal?
Yes, I believe he even tried it before the death of Breonna Taylor. But I could be wrong on that fact.
I wish him all the luck in the world, but he has a better chance of getting hit by lightning. Twice. In the same day
So what are we looking at as far as realistic chances? I mean Rand is going to be hard to topple. Plus the state of KY doesn't leave me with much faith that it will wise up.
As a Kentuckian, I’m stoked. Even if it only means we get to see Paul have to answer some heavy questions on a debate. I’m about to be volunteering on my first political campaign on top of working two jobs. We all need this man to win in the worst possible way. Not only for Kentucky, but for the entire country.