Skip to comments.McConnell in trouble in Kentucky senate race
Posted on 01/29/2014 6:05:53 PM PST by cotton1706
Mitch McConnell, the leader of the Republican Party in the U.S. Senate, has low ratings among voters in his native Kentucky, according to a survey released Wednesday by Public Policy Polling.
According to PPP, 37 percent approve of McConnell's performance as a senator, and 51 disapprove.
He has a one point lead, 45-44, over possible Democratic contender Alison Lundergan Grimes.
Since the estimated margin of error for the survey is plus or minus about four percentage points, the senate race is essentially even.
There has been a "run of PPP surveys showing the two
candidates within a few points of each other going all the way back to last May," the pollster reported.
Proposals to raise the federal minimum wage may be a key issue in Kentucky, PPP reported, with 57 percent supporting it in Kentucky, 34 percent opposing and 17 percent saying the issue is important enough to them they would be less likely to vote for a candidate who opposes increasing the minimum wage.
McConnell is leader of an increasingly divided Senate Republican Caucus, which has split on a number of issues along conservative vs. moderate lines.
Grimes, 35, could prove to be a formidable opponent as the election draws closer. She was elected Kentucky's Secretary of State in 2011 with 61 percent of the vote against the GOP's Bill Johnson.
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...
Mitch has two candidates attacking him before all of Kentucky; the Dem witch and the GOP Primary Candidate, Matt Bevins. Let the Dem help weaken McConnell in the eyes of the folks of the Blue Grass State. That will help Matt Bevins in the GOP Primary. Then he can win the General Election. Am I right or wrong in my assessment here? Anybody?
However the worthless incumbent gets weakened and defeated. I, for one, am going to keep pounding until McConnell is gone. He is a treacherous sleazeball out for his own power, and the rest of us be damned!
C 33, if KY allows this I bet this is just what he does. Like that witch in AK.
Mitch can try and run as an Independent if he loses the GOP nomination in the Primary, but KENTUCKY IS NOT ALASKA. First of all, Joe Miller ran a “sucky” campaign and “let” MurCOWski win. In Kentucky, there will be a strong Pubbie (Matt Bevins) and a popular Democrat for the people to choose from in the General Election. They will not say: “Oh heck, Mitch is running as an Independent; let’s go ahead and vote for him.” No way. And McConnell knows this. He can run, but he can’t hide.
Well, the fact that the RNC didn’t give Miller any help and didn’t take MurCOWski off any committees when she switched her affiliation doesn’t look good for them either.
Should Bevin win the GOP nomination and the turtle declare as an independent, don’t expect him to lose any seniority either. And Bevin better not count on any RNC support.
Your Post 46 makes a lot of sense. But, I still say: “Kentucky is NOT Alaska.”
See my tagline, though I'm not saying Bevin's not viable...far from it. Long time incumbents from both political parties need to return to private life.
The trick is to find a couple of more Cruzes in some other States.
I should move to Wisconsin. Texas is too hot.
GOPe turd alert
The first round in Cornyn’s primary comes first on March 4th.
I support Steve Stockman in that race.
You do realize that, that is exactly why Romney lost, and got us stuck with four more years of Obama - don’t you?
What Kentucky needs is a good'ol toothless, conservative hillbilly with common sense to run. He'd win in a landslide.
The one that thinks he's a "messiah" now, or the one that thinks he'll get his own planet and *become* a "messiah" later?
Just trying to figure out which one was the "conservative" choice, since I didn't vote for either of them to represent me in this representative government we're supposed to have. Any light you could shed on why one "messiah" is/was more or less conservative (maybe severe conservative?) than the other would be a big help as, silly me, I didn't think the aforementioned stances were conservative.
“Conservative” Rand Paul is supporting McConnell.
I voted for the non-communist!
I held my nose and voted for Romney. And like that traitor McCain (whom I also voted for), he essentially threw the election. He went for the jugular in the primary and wimped out in the general.
But you aren't getting it. McConnell isn't better than a Democrat. He only pretends to be. He is selling us out behind the scenes all the time - instead in front of us as the Dem will do. He is absolutely worthless POS in the Senate.
Again, he has openly declared war on conservatives and conservatism. I'm not voting for the SOB who pisses on me and sells me out. He is not the lesser of two evils, he's the same damn thing in disguise.
So? I don't care who "supports" or endorses him. WTF does that mean, anyway? It doesn't change what he is, what he has done, or what he will do (same damn things he's always done).
I am rather disappointed in Paul. But he doesn't tell me how to vote.
I’m from KY, NKY by cincy, and I’m not a fan of Mitch, but he IS better than a Democrat, because if we don’t get 50, Cruz is irrelevant. The dens nuked the rules, EVERY repub is irrelevant, including Cruz and Lee, if the dens control the Senate.
We don’t have 50 yet. I think either repub can win general, but if Mitch wins primary, I vote for him in the general, otherwise its a vote for both Reid, and Obama.