Considering in 2016 not a single state voted for a presidential candidate/senate candidate from opposing parties, this new trend of down ballot sweeps will only likely be more cemented in heavily partisan states like Kentucky.

Accidentally added "Write-In" when attempting to save, I'm dumb

McGrath raised $10.7 million in Q3.

The great thing about candidates like McGrath, Abrams, Beto, etc., is that although they may not prove victorious in their own respective races, they still help to generate turnout and enthusiasm which helps Democratic candidates up and down the ballot in each of these states to varying degrees.

Cox is the only candidate listed here who didn't file. He did tweet about driving to Frankfort (the capital) today but nothing since.

Well well well....

What does McGrath do with all of the leftover campaign money, assuming she didn't spend it all in the final weeks? Can she transfer it if she didn't think she would want to run again? Does she set up the Amy McGrath Institute?

What does McGrath do with all of the leftover campaign money, assuming she didn't spend it all in the final weeks? Can she transfer it if she didn't think she would want to run again? Does she set up the Amy McGrath Institute? Use it as tissues to wipe her tears 😂😂😂. I'm feelin good tonight

With jefferson and fayette counties accounted for, I'd say this favors Booker

Guess McGrath has something to do with the campaign money, after all.

After McGrath loses by 20, cue all the Bernie bros saying Booker would have won...

https://twitter.com/evanlweber/status/1277972047390339074?s=20

I was curious to see how the "Hood to the Holler" campaign would go; I think it would have surprised people. Regardless, I don't think Charles Booker is going anywhere. He was authentic and debated very well. McGrath was bleeding votes; if the campaign had gone another week (and McGrath hadn't banked mail-in votes), Booker would have won.

Oh here we go... Is there an independent source that corroborates this? I searched "Fayette County KY 6000 rejected" and got a subreddit linking to this tweet and a YouTube claiming voting suppression. Is the conspiracy here that a GOP Secretary of State conspired with the DNC/DSCC to have McGrath win the primary?

Is the conspiracy here that a GOP Secretary of State conspired with the DNC/DSCC to have McGrath win the primary? How dare I want every vote counted, thats really inconsiderate of me

We just gonna ignore the request for an independent source and go straight to you being she democracy martyr? Good conversation, as always.

If anything, Booker should be happy with the result of this primary. He came up short, but he built up a lot of good will in the state and nationally and doesn't have to risk a big loss to McConnell to ruin his momentum. I don't see him winning a statewide race anytime in the near future, but he could run for Yarmuth's district whenever he steps down.

We just gonna ignore the request for an independent source and go straight to you being she democracy martyr? Good conversation, as always. The Booker campaigns been on top of this and has been trying to get all the ballots counted. If all votes are counted and McGrath walks out the victor, democracy wins again...

I'm ready for IRV in primaries so we find new ways to complain when our favorite candidates don't win

I'm ready for IRV in primaries so we find new ways to complain when our favorite candidates don't win I want IRV for more than Primary...

IRV would probably make more of a direct impact for primaries. IRV's impact on general elections is more of a "we don't have to argue as much about spoiler effects" thing. Obviously the sample size isn't huge, but it seems difficult in most situations for somebody who isn't in 1st/2nd place in the first count to get into first by the end, so actually getting third parties elected through IRV might involve having them start off in 2nd place.

IRV would probably make more of a direct impact for primaries. IRV's impact on general elections is more of a "we don't have to argue as much about spoiler effects" thing. Obviously the sample size isn't huge, but it seems difficult in most situations for somebody who isn't in 1st/2nd place in the first count to get into first by the end, so actually getting third parties elected through IRV might involve having them start off in 2nd place. fwiw the counterpoint is that, with IRV established, there would be instances where voters would be more likely to choose a "third party" candidate as their first option, thereby increasing their chances of coming in second, but even that I feel like is a low probability, at least in the short term. This is actually one of the reasons why- even though I support IRV/RCV referenda and similar measures when they come up- I don't think it's actually a particularly meaningful reform (especially when you consider how completely awful ballot access can be in the first place)

IRV in primaries (and also in local elections) might bring out more candidates, which is a positive since some municipal elections just aren't usually interesting. The ballot access awfulness might be made worse by IRV if they don't let non-final results factor into qualifying by reaching a certain percent. Sorta like how California party qualifications are all voter reg since top two eliminates most opportunities for third parties to make it to November for a statewide election. Some form of deposit ala British elections where non-major party candidates can reach the ballot easier could be a good idea if the bar is set in a reasonable place. Some of the smaller parties are essentially clubs, so they would be in a better spot to just pick their nominees, drop some money, and then lose the deposit.

I'm liking the combo of a top-two IRV open primary with a regular general election (with the 2 candidates and possible write-ins.)