Replies

"Voters in this state are pretty independent. Even Republican voters are independent minded,"

Notice that it was assumed that Democrats are "independent," but here "even" Republican voters are independent-minded.

How will Jim Bunning fare next election? How about Mitch? Seems they did not stump much for her, sort of set her up to sacrifice to the dems on this one. As soon as she looked to be in trouble they both distanced themselves even more, or so it seemed.

Notice that it was assumed that Democrats are "independent," but here "even" Republican voters are independent-minded.

I worked for the Kerr camp, that said... Talked to one voter, "He said, This is the Nth time, I've been called, To Hell w/ both...I'm not voting."...(I'm NOT criticizing, just observing) it seems Kerr was 'out-hustled' for votes, while the ones that would have voted for her were harass enough not to vote...the 'RATs were gently coaxed to the polls....its seems a longer campaign, more/better resources, a more personal visits/approach by the Kerr would have helped...not to mention the slanted Media coverage..."the GOP was over-electeered, to a fault...taken too much, for granted"

Ted Jackson, a Republican political consultant from Louisville, offered another possible cause of Kerr's loss: Kentuckians in both parties don't want one party to dominate.

This is going to be a recurring theme for Republicans as long as we have the presidency, house and senate. Enough voters have a stated desire for divided government to push swing districts over to the side that is out of power.

It's a problem I don't mind having, but a problem nonetheless.

People blaming Mitch, or saying he didn't work for Kerr, are ridiculous. Mitch's entire staff, including Billy Piper, were loaned to Kerr's campaign, and he raised tons for her. Nobody stayed home because "Mitch played King". Chandler had been campaigning for 18 months straight and had 100% name recognition. The negatives on him in the governor's race (Patton, e.g.) didn't carry over. None of the GOP candidates had any significant name recognition relative to Chandler - and that includes Lonnie Napier, who was so angry about Mitch leaning on the party to pick Kerr. Nobody outworked the GOP, either. They just had a good candidate.

Lonnie or Stan either one would have had the same hurdles to overcome had Mitch not gotten involved. They may be a bit relieved they were not the candidate, because now they have lifeleft when they can mount a whole season-long campaign next time. They don't have to face a highly known candidate with just two months to win.

Those who ignore the uphill battle we had in this race are doing so over sour grapes. I can sympathize with their anger at Mitch, but that's not realistic and it's not helpful to keeping the party moving toward winning for Bush and Buford,presumably, in the fall.

That's very surprising, considering she is so popular in her district and usually wins it very decisively (I think with 58% in the 2002). I think that is a clear sign the Republican base just didn't turn out and the Dem base was energized to win something after having lost so much.

It's also possible the political ads, after having just been treated so many just recently with the 2003 races, rolled off of people's backs. They seemed to have very little effect, positive or negative.

Notice that it was assumed that Democrats are "independent," but here "even" Republican voters are independent-minded.

Well, that comment has to do with the fact that it is more likely that Democrat registered voters in Kentucky will cross over than Republicans. Republicans winning elections so consistently now in a State with overwhelming Democrat voter registration is what drives comments like that.