Kentucky: Obama/2012 - 37% Lundergan-Grimes/2014 - 41%

[jberryhill]

No matter how you slice it, Allison Lundergan Grimes received a higher percentage of the Kentucky vote in a midterm election than President Obama did in the presidential vote in 2012.

This simple observation does not support the conclusion that being perceived as more closely aligned with President Obama would have helped her against a longstanding incumbent Senator.

I would think Kentuckians would find Mitt Romney to be much less desirable a candidate than Mitch McConnell.

[jeff47]

1. The turnout was identical in both races, right?

Oh wait...it wasn't.

The argument about running away from Obama was bad is she didn't couldn't embrace his successes either. For example, she couldn't run on how people love KyNect because that's running on Obamacare. KyNect is so beloved that McConnell had to lie about it continuing to exist without Obamacare.

Could not running against Obama have increased turnout? No way to really know. But the analysis is not nearly as simple as you imply.

[upaloopa]

2. She needed conservatives to vote for her.

It is easy to see that if Obama got only 12% she would have a hard time appealing to only Dems. She needed Dems, indies and conservatives to vote for her. Clinging to Obama would not help with indies and conservatives. It is hard for a Dem to win in Kentucky.

[kentuck]

3. Under the conditions in last election..

It would have been hard for any Democrat to win. McConnell had spent years demonizing Obama. Coal miners were losing jobs by the thousands. Mitch outspent opponent 5 to 1. Obama's ratings were at 29% favorable. It was a difficult row to hoe for Democrats.