Here are the results of the primaries (119 of 120 counties reporting) in Kentucky where 11 candidates (6 Republicans and 5 Democrats) in two parties are competing to see who will face each other to replace the retiring Jim Bunting in the fall. The top Republican, Rand Paul, will be facing the top Democrat, Jack Conway in November.
The turnout is Kentucky was 32.65%, with 40.34% casting ballots for Republicans and 59.66% casting ballots for Democrats in the US Senate race.
| Kentucky GOP Primary for US SENATE | ||
|---|---|---|
| Candidate | Percent of Vote | Number of Votes |
| Rand Paul | 58.77 | 206812 |
| Trey Grayson | 35.44 | 124710 |
| Bill Johnson | 2.23 | 7855 |
| John Stephenson | 1.96 | 6885 |
| Gurley Martin | 0.81 | 2852 |
| Jon Scribner | 0.80 | 2813 |
| Total GOP Ballots Cast | 351927 | |
| Kentucky DEM Primary for US SENATE | ||
|---|---|---|
| Candidate | Percent of Vote | Number of Votes |
| Jack Conway | 43.91 | 228531 |
| Daniel Mongiardo | 43.23 | 224989 |
| Darlene Price | 5.48 | 28543 |
| James Buckmaster | 3.95 | 20539 |
| Maurice Sweeney | 3.42 | 17810 |
| Total DEM Ballots Cast | 520412 | |
**7.23am update**
This just in from Five Thirty Eight:
Because of Paul's impressive 24-point margin of victory, almost any explanation you might proffer probably contains some element of truth. But for all his libertarian and tea-party dressing, Paul in fact ran on a fairly conventional, conservative platform. He's pro-life, anti-gay marriage, anti-immigration ... there are only the faintest hints of libertarianism here. This was probably a good thing for him because Kentucky, which has traditionally been socially conservative but economically moderate, is pretty much kitty-corner to the libertarian side of the political quadrant. This was actually very clever, in a lot of ways -- Paul's last name (and decision to affiliate himself with the tea party) gained him national attention and fundraising and earned media, but to people in Kentucky, he ought to have been a very comfortable choice who was somewhat more fresh-faced than his rival. The branded product beat the generic one.
Paul might have some trouble in general election, especially after somewhat underwhelming turnout in the primary (Democratic turnout was actually 60 percent higher, although Democrats enjoy a substantial registration advantage in Kentucky). But that's more because of his inexperience and standoffishness and less because of his platform.
**7.55am** Polling Data on the Paul vs Conway show it could be a horse race in Kentucky...
Daily Kos (D) has Paul by 3% [42-39]
PPP (D) has Paul by 1% [41-40]
Rasmussen has Paul by 9% [47-38]
RCP Poll Avg has Paul by 4.3% [43.3-39]
Source: Real Clear Politics
**8.15am**
I found this on a conservative blog in Kentucky that shows the tactics being used by libertarians like Rand Paul to infiltrate the Republican Party. Rand made it through based on his daddy's donor list and name recognition. Thank God that other libertarians are finding a harder time of it in other races.
"I know that third party candidates can’t win in KY. Although I’m a libertarian at heart, I’ve decided to run as a Republican. Once I win I’ll be able to promote my father’s principles and work towards reforming the Republican party." `Rand PaulSource: Conservative KY Gal
More article from this blog as I tracked a similar effort in western North Carolina:
Posts
4 comments :
Mr. Coggins,
Does your beef with Paul originate with his foreign policy stance?
Surely, a conservative as passionate as yourself would find some common ground with Dr. Paul on economic issues, little r Republicanism, and border security, right? It's sad that expanionist wars create the split among conservatives and Neo-Conservatives.
The use of force to achieve policy ends is certainly legitimate in some situations; those situations are limited. General Rupert Smith's "Utility of Force" outlines why. John Reed's not-so-quick review here...http://johntreed.com/utilityofforce.html. I urge you to read the book.
Anyway, it's a discussion we need to have as a country. Unfortunately, I don't think the American public really has a principled stand concerning wars, as long as they're short.
I like your stuff Mr. Coggins. I would, however, encourage you to re-examine big government conservatism. It's a loser at the end of the day.
Thanks for your work.
@Boone:
I appreciate your forthrightness.
I've blogged many times about where I disagree with Ron Paul for five years.
To put it as simply as I can, his views on Foreign Policy, Hatred of Israel, his immoral support for drug use, support of jihad, providing aid and comfort to our enemies outweigh any scintilla of good that may be found in his fiscal policy.
His son is little more than Wolf in Sheep's Clothing (like many libertarians) masquerading as conservatives.
As far as the current struggle against the jihadis, we should engage the enemy where ever we can find them and treat nations that harbor them as committing acts of war against us. We are in a struggle for the very survival of our civilization.
I've been to the Middle East and seen how non-Muslims have to fight for their lives, hide their 'illegal' religion from their governments. It is our duty as humans to help these people any way we can...with or without our governments' approval.
I was in Haifa when it was under Scud attack from Saddam Hussein during Operation Desert Storm volunteering with American Red Magen David for Israel as an EMT.
There can be no purpose served by finding common ground with Paul in areas where I agree with his fiscal policy because that would give credence to his other evil beliefs. As far as I am concerned, he is in the same category as David Duke, Adam Yahiye Gadahn, Aaron Burr or Benedict Arnold. Nothing good could come from associating with him, or the aforementioned people, at any level.
As far as principled wars, when we fight them, we should fight them to win. And may God have mercy on those who stand in the way of our prosecution of a war.
My conservatism comes from the Father of Modern Conservatism, Dr. Russell Kirk. If you can agree with at least 7 of these ten principles of conservatism, then you (or anyone who does)is a conservative. To pretend otherwise is foolishness.
Libertarians have started a foolish crusade to take over the republican Party. It is a battle they cannot win. At least it beats them trying to form another party that would replace the GOP. Hopefully, that door will close in a few years.
Mr. Coggins,
Thank you for the reply. I think we agree in principle but diverge on execution. Put simply, I totally agree with your response that we are in a "struggle for our very civilization". If lowering the boom is the most effective way to ensure peace and security, make it hurt. I think Dr. Paul and I differ on that.
However, I've heard it said that terrorism is a publicity stunt DESIGNED to provoke an outsized response, which perpetuates hate, retaliation, etc. I tend to agree with that, as terrorism is an effective way to hinder and demoralize an opponent and their people. It may also be the way to victory for Davids over Goliaths. I dunno.
I simply think force has a very limited application in meeting the current threats we face. Dr. Kirk himself espoused prudence.
As to your other points, they're all valid. There are principled reasons for all of Dr. Paul's positions. Disagreement with those positions is also valid, obviously.
Thank you again for the response. I was initially confused by your "paultard" criticism of Paul, though your response clears that up. Perhaps you should sticky that response and include it whenever talking about Paul, his supporters, etc.
Also, I would like to send you tips, YouTube clips of WNC events etc, as I'm a Swain county resident and WCU student. However, I can't seem to find your email on your site.
Again, I appreciate the reasoned response.
@Boone:
Classical Terrorism as designed by the Soviets for their client states during the 60s and 70s followed that political model of trying to generate an over response.
About the time of the Islamic Revolution in Iran, that changed. Terrorism became a means to an end. The Third Great Jihad (as they call it it) began. Terrorism was used as a tool against Israel and the West by Iran and their client states because they realized that they could never beat us using conventional strategy and tactics.
They sought to use terrorism as a tool of asymmetric warfare to target our weaknesses and to cause our people to rise up and demand that our government stop being an ally of Israel and other Free Peoples.
Others began to see the utility of using this method of warfare against us (Western Civilization) in general, and Israel in particular.
This is one of the reasons I despise the anti-war movement so very much. They have fallen for the designs of the Islamic Jihadis, and have, in effect, become foot soldiers for Islamic Terrorists.
I don't check email on a regular basis.
You can send me tips, etc as a message to my facebook account. It is easy to remember. http://www.facebook.com/Thunder.Pig
If you want a quicker response, follow me on Twitter and send a DM. http://twitter.com/ThunderPig I use that as a type of IM.
If you know of any websites (or blogs or YT accts) in Swain that regularly post info...please let me know. I am always on the lookout for news sources that bypass the Legacy Media.
It has been my experience that the typical fan of Ron Paul (though nice people) will not listen to reason. Some of them are incapable of following a logical exploration of the issues and cannot comprehend that others just do not see things from their point of view for valid reasons...even those Lefties I vehemently disagree with have logical arguments.
Post a Comment