Tuesday, May 27, 2008

Psss, Wanna a Senate Majority???

Hillary Clinton is the best Democratic candidate for the presidential nomination; and any senator who has already endorsed Obama may want to reconsider -- especially if he or she wants to see a super-Senate majority of 60 in the next Congressional session.

MyDD notes that a 60-seat majority runs through Kentucky. And in the latest Rasmussen telephone survey, "Democratic challenger Bruce Lunsford [has] a five percentage point lead over long-time Republican Senator Mitch McConnell.

Unfortunately for Obama, polling data in Kentucky is not as sanguine. "John McCain leads Barack Obama by twenty-five percentage points. "

Sensing the new political paradigm, McConnell forwarded a press release last week saying that "he [was] looking forward to running against the 'Lunsford-Obama plan for America.'"


Oh yeah, almost forgot. Hillary beats McCain, 51 percent to 42 percent. Got any more questions, supers...?

There is a reason that the Cook Political Report lists the Kentucky Senate race as "Safe Republican". That is because, unlike you and the folks over at MyDD, Charlie Cook knows what the hell he is talking about when it comes to politics. I don't care if we nominate Jesus Christ himself for president. McCain will carry Kentucky and Mitch McConnell will be reelected.

If you would take a break from these bizarre Hillary rants and collect a fact or two you might also have learned that Bruce Lunsford is not exactly the darling of the Kentucky Democratic Party. In 2003 the jackass spent a few of his millions running for governor before dropping out prior to the primary. Before leaving the race he trashed Attorney General Ben Chandler with vicious, bogus attacks (kind of like the ones you make against Obama daily) and then he endorsed the Republican nominee. Since 1995, Lunsford had given more than $40,000 to REPUBLICAN candidates. There is more but, knowing your aversion to facts, I wouldn't want to overload you.

If you seriously think that Clinton would carry Kentucky in a general election I want some of the drugs you are taking. And if you take that Rasmussen number showing Clinton winning with anything but a large grain of salt then you are as unfamiliar with analysis as you are with facts.

Clinton was the only candidate campaigning in Kentucky. No campaign was waged against her. Of course her numbers are going to bounce up in the state at the moment. There was also no Republican campaign in the state.

You might also look at poll numbers for candidates like Bill Bradley or Jerry Brown or Gary Hart after the presumptive nominees stopped campaigning against them. You got it. Their numbers went up because no one was campigning against them.

Had Clinton been the Democratic nominee, McConnell's press release would have read "Lunsford-Clinton plan for America" It makes little difference in Kentucky. We aren't winning that one in any event.

As far as a national strategy for the Republicans goes, tying Democratic Congressional candidates to Obama may not be the way to go. We saw them try that in Mississippi in the special election and it blew up in their faces.

As much as I'd love to see 60 Democrats in the Senate it isn't likely. Picking up five to eight seats is very possible though. Assuming we all get our oars in the water and start pulling together. Hint. Hint.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?