PDA

View Full Version : Results for Kentucky State House races




Brett85
11-04-2014, 06:29 PM
http://www.kentucky.com/2014/11/04/3241253/election-results-2014-general.html

This is important for Rand's 2016 plans. I'm not really sure which races the GOP needs to win to win the house majority.

Brett85
11-04-2014, 07:51 PM
Does anyone know what races the Republicans needed to win here to win the majority?

Brett85
11-04-2014, 08:59 PM
The results don't look very good to me. It doesn't look like the Kentucky Republicans are going to take the house. Rand is going to have to figure out what he wants to do.

Krugminator2
11-04-2014, 10:09 PM
He will almost certainly run for both. If it really came down being an issue, Rand could run for Senate and leave his name blank for President on the Kentucky ballot. It also seems very likely he would win in court if he went the legal route. The Constitution has authority on Federal elections not the states. States can make laws keeping people running for two state offices at the same time but states probably can't tell candidates they can't run for an office that they don't have jurisdiction over.

lib3rtarian
11-04-2014, 10:23 PM
529840073458864128
529831725283962880
529822393964167168

Brett85
11-04-2014, 10:29 PM
Man, if the Kentucky Republicans can't take the state house in a year like this, they won't ever take it.

Brett85
11-04-2014, 10:30 PM
He will almost certainly run for both. If it really came down being an issue, Rand could run for Senate and leave his name blank for President on the Kentucky ballot. It also seems very likely he would win in court if he went the legal route. The Constitution has authority on Federal elections not the states. States can make laws keeping people running for two state offices at the same time but states probably can't tell candidates they can't run for an office that they don't have jurisdiction over.

I think he would win the lawsuit in court, but the question is whether he wants to risk making himself look bad by filing a lawsuit.

lib3rtarian
11-04-2014, 11:44 PM
GovBeat: Ky. Dems hold state House, a minor blow to Rand Paul (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/11/04/democrats-hold-kentucky-house-a-minor-blow-to-rand-pauls-presidential-hopes/?tid=hpModule_ba0d4c2a-86a2-11e2-9d71-f0feafdd1394)

CPUd
11-04-2014, 11:56 PM
This is the real reason the Clintons came to KY. They knew McConnell was a lock, but they want to make sure the KY legislature doesn't flip.

libertybrewcity
11-05-2014, 01:11 AM
This is the real reason the Clintons came to KY. They knew McConnell was a lock, but they want to make sure the KY legislature doesn't flip.


This isn't good for Rand. Anyone have any ideas about what he might do to run for president without losing his senate seat? I was also hoping the statehouse would flip so they could pass some Right to Work legislation and some other great bills.

CPUd
11-05-2014, 01:17 AM
This isn't good for Rand. Anyone have any ideas about what he might do to run for president without losing his senate seat? I was also hoping the statehouse would flip so they could pass some Right to Work legislation and some other great bills.

He still has several options. Most of them involve him running for Senate in KY.

Galileo Galilei
11-05-2014, 01:27 AM
This isn't good for Rand. Anyone have any ideas about what he might do to run for president without losing his senate seat? I was also hoping the statehouse would flip so they could pass some Right to Work legislation and some other great bills.

It does not matter that much. [Worst case] all Rand has to do is run as a write-in candidate in Kentucky for president. He would also win the court challenge as well to be named on the ballot for both offices, there is clear precedent on this. A state cannot restrict federal more than what the Constitution already proscribes.

Brett85
11-05-2014, 07:50 AM
He would also win the court challenge as well to be named on the ballot for both offices, there is clear precedent on this. A state cannot restrict federal more than what the Constitution already proscribes.

How exactly would that work? Could he get that expedited to the Supreme Court immediately for them to rule on?

Galileo Galilei
11-05-2014, 02:15 PM
How exactly would that work? Could he get that expedited to the Supreme Court immediately for them to rule on?

Yes.