Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Tuesday, October 25, 2016

Democrat Alison Lundergan Grimes has outraised Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) in her first quarter as a candidate in Kentucky’s 2014 U.S. Senate race.

Grimes raised $2.5 million from July through September, outpacing McConnell’s $2.3 million haul. The Hill reports that Grimes “received contributions from 13,000 individual donors, more than double the nearly 6,000 that contributed to McConnell.” More than 11,000 of the donations to Grimes were for $50 or less.

“The record-breaking showing speaks to the overwhelming grassroots momentum behind Alison’s campaign and the fact that people across the political spectrum are tired of Mitch McConnell’s out-of-touch, failed leadership,” Grimes campaign advisor Jonathan Hurst said in a statement. “Simply put, McConnell is not receiving a passing grade from Kentucky or this nation.”

Despite Grimes’ strong first quarter, she remains at a significant financial disadvantage to the minority leader. Senator McConnell has about $10 million in cash on hand, left over from previous elections. Still, her fundraising totals are a clear signal that — at least financially — Grimes is a top-tier candidate.

Early polling of the race has suggested that the race begins as a tossup — although McConnell’s poll numbers are subject to rapid change due to his position as a leader of the uncertain effort to reopen the government and raise the debt ceiling before the October 17 deadline.

Photo: Patrick Delahanty via Wikimedia Commons

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2013 The National Memo
  • Lynda Groom

    I wish her well, but we must remember that we are talkiing about Kentucky. Rand Paul did not get elected due to his reasonable approach to the issues.

    • John Pigg

      It’s easy to hate on Rand for a lot of his absurd domestic policy stances. But some of his stances are quite reasonable. Specifically in regards to his non-interventionistic Foriegn Policy. The U.S. desperately needs Senators who will question Republican and Democratic administrations on their use of American Force.

      Another attractive position is his opposition to mandatory drug sentencing. Both of those issues breath diversity in a party that generally offers none.

      I will agree with you on taxes that he is completely unreasonable, but not bombing foreign countries, and considering the end of the war on drugs are laudable goals. It’s only too bad he has presidential aspirations, or I would say the Senate is better with his presence.

      • Lynda Groom

        Agreed the country is certainly trigger happy and the drug war is a massive failure. However, he is not the only member of Congress who has such views. It is laudable that he holds such views, but for me that is not enough to provide cover for many of his other views.

        • John Pigg

          There may be others who hold such views, but when issues arise they are nowhere to be found. Liberal Peace advocates were conspicuously absent from conversation related to bombing Syria. The same is true of far right Tea Party conservatives during the Bush years.

          I’m not asking you to like him or even worse vote for him. Rand Paul has many glaring problems. But perhaps his election says that Red states are tired of the war on terror and the war on drugs. Which, I think is quite reasonable.

          • Lovefacts

            I wish you were right. But until they vote out the T-party, this country will continue to politically and economically come apart. God, I wish we had a Constitutional Amendment that did the following:
            1. Set term limits–12 years for both Houses to be phased-in over six years.
            2. All Federal elections, including primaries, to be underwritten by the government, and not limited to just two parties.
            3. Forbid gerrymandering, setting out a grid system.
            4. Stated anyone who worked for the Federal Govt., was elected to the Federal Govt., or was on the staff of someone elected could not lobby or work in an industry where they made laws, regulations, or gave approval (such as drugs) for the same number of years they held those positions.
            Then and only then, we citizens might, just might have a chance because the playing field would be level. It’s sure take the money out of politics and return it to for they people, by the people.

          • drdroad

            Sorry Lovefacts, in what world do you see term limits making any difference? Many states have term limits for their locally elected officials. Including California, do you want to hold California up as a study of successful political interaction or efficiency? As a 45 year resident, I sure don’t. I’ve seen too often how the newly elected inexperienced candidates just couldn’t figure out how to fix the problem within a system they didn’t understand. And has it worked well for the President? Sure wish Clinton could have continuously been reelected!

          • John Pigg

            A lot of people think reform of the system is the way to go. I personally disagree.

            The American two party system is unique and is the most historically stable in the world.

            1. Term limits looks great on paper, however it would eliminate responsible statesmen who learn the process and can pass big legislation.

            2. The two party system works. What does not work is an ideological two party system. If you want to fix the process the best way is to support Conservative Dems, and Liberal Republicans. This will return our system to the way it was historically with two parties with a variety of caucuses.

            3. I dunno about a grid system. Something to think about it.

            4. The stricter lobbying laws become the more corporations can use the regulations to their advantage with preventing citizens from approaching their congressmen as non-profits. More regulation will mean more corporate power, who else has access to legal advice. (This has already happened, a nonprofit in the Northeast was accussed of not following lobbying rule procedure because their firm was not registered with the government.)

            In my opinion the problem is not the Tea Party, it is the big money corrupting the system. And the break from our historically diverse two party system.

      • Allan Richardson

        If only there were a party that combined the cultural freedom stance of the Libertarians with the knowledge that economically, we must do SOME things individually and OTHER things as a community, which requires “pieces” of the “socialist” philosophy grafted onto the market economy! Oh wait, there is! It’s the progressive wing of the Democratic Party!

        • John Pigg

          Ideologically, I am in complete agreement with you. In practice I would say the progressive wing of the Democratic Party tends to only be active during Republican Presidencies, just like the TP anti-intervention Faction is only active during Democratic Presidencies.

          What we need is congressional and Party leaders to stand up to the Imperial Presidency whether it be Red or Blue.

          But if there were a political party that was fiscally responsible, but believed that taxes are not evil, that is a Party that I could be a part of.

      • NCSteve

        If I come to a restaurant because it got good reviews and people I know say good things about it’s food and another guy comes to that restaurant because the Galactic Overlords told him to do so by sending him coded messages through the electrical sockets in his house, he and I agree by coincidence. The fact that we both like that restaurant doesn’t mean we actually agree nor does it mean his decision to frequent the same restaurant I do is reason enough to carpool with him.

        The craziness that drives the positions you disagree with him on is the same thing that causes him to arrive at some positions that you share.

        • John Pigg

          Actually, if you both like the restaurant then you both like the restaurant and that is an agreement. Irregardless of how you both arrived at the decision.

          • latebloomingrandma

            And that’s what’s known as “common ground”, which is a starting point, not an end point for “compromise”.

  • docb