There was not an electoral "hood to the holler"
38.2
In his U.S. Senate campaign over the last two years, Charles Booker ran on a platform of left-wing ideas like Medicare-for-all, reparations and a universal basic income. He became a major figure in Kentucky politics in 2020 because of his moving speeches about racial inequality after the killing of Breonna Taylor by Louisville police. In contrast, in her 2020 U.S. Senate run, Amy McGrath emphasized her centrism and largely downplayed racial issues.
Booker is black, McGrath is white.
Booker is a former state representative who lives in Louisville. McGrath is a Lexington-area former Marine who has never served in office.
Booker ran on the “Hood to the Holler” theme, emphasizing the connections between lower and middle-income people in Louisville and in the more rural parts of the state. McGrath focused on wooing middle-income and upper-income moderate Republicans in the suburbs around Lexington, Louisville and Cincinnati.
But the results were almost exactly the same–eerily so. In 2020, McGrath won 38.2% of the vote. Booker is right now at 38.2, although there are some votes yet to be counted. They each won only three of Kentucky’s 120 counties: Jefferson (Louisville), Fayette (Lexington) and Franklin (Frankfort.)
I would say Booker was probably a slightly better candidate for two reasons. First, he won 38 percent while raising and spending less than $10 million for his campaign, compared to McGrath’s $90 million. Secondly, 2022 was a harder year to run as a Democrat than 2020.
But the two of them getting such similar results is telling. There is so much focus on individual candidates. But partisanship is so much more important, particularly in federal elections—and so much more static. It is likely that very very few people in Kentucky voted for Booker but not McGrath or vice versa.
There is no electoral “hood to the holler”
The idea of a candidate connecting with an urban and rural, white and non-white coalition of working class people, as Booker had hoped to do, is very appealing. And there is the potential for a class-based coalition in American politics. Millions of people don’t vote, even in presidential elections. (About 33 percent of voting-eligible Americans didn’t cast ballots in 2020.) Non-voters on average have lower incomes than those who do vote.
But it’s really hard to build such a coalition–and not just in Kentucky. The people who don’t vote tend to be skeptical of politicians and the idea that the government can really help them. (Perhaps correctly.)
Among those who do vote, they are not voting based on some shared class, worker or economic status or interests. Republicans won about 60 percent of the vote this week among Kentuckians in households with family income below $50,000, according to surveys done by the Associated Press. They also won about 60 percent in households with income above $50,000.
But it’s not just economics. Voters may not be choosing candidates based on policy at all. The majority of Kentucky voters took the pro-abortion rights stance on a ballot measure this week. (More on that in a bit.) They also voted for the very anti-abortion Rand Paul. It’s likely that a ballot initiative raising the minimum wage or expanding Medicaid would also pass in Kentucky, even though the state’s dominant politicians (the Republicans) oppose those policies.
In today’s America, the overwhelming majority of people (more than 80 percent) vote for the same party in national elections, cycle after cycle. White people who live in rural areas, identify as evangelical Christians and/or don’t have college degrees are likely to 1. think of themselves as conservative (even if they hold liberal views on a few issues like raising the minimum wage) 2. be wary of Black Lives Matter, the growing acceptance of transgender people and other shifts happening on identity issues and 3. have lots of friends who are conservatives and Republicans. Voting for a Democratic candidate is just very hard for them, since the broader party embodies things that they don’t agree with. But voting for a Democratic policy or two is a much smaller leap.
People who aren’t white, who are non-Christian (so Jewish, atheist, “nothing in particular”), live in urban areas and/or have college degrees are more likely to think of themselves as liberal, be fine with some of the shifts happening on racial, gender and identity issues and have lots of friends who are Democrats. So they vote Democratic, even if say, inflation is very high in part because of the policies of a Democratic president.
AP estimated that about 90 percent of Kentucky voters are white, and 67 percent of that group voted Republican this week. The 10 percent of Kentucky voters who are not white voted about 75% percent for Democrats. 47 percent of Kentuckian voters described themselves as conservative and they voted overwhelmingly for Republicans. 27 percent of Kentuckians say they are liberal, and that bloc voted overwhelmingly for Democrats.
In Kentucky, it appears right now the voting-Republican-in-national-elections bloc is 60-65 percent of voters, the voting-Democratic-in-national-elections bloc is 35-40 percent.
What about abortion? And Andy Beshear?
People tend to break from their party and consider individual candidates more at the local and state level.
That said, in 2019, Republicans won most of the statewide offices fairly easily, along that 60/40 breakdown. What Andy Beshear had going for him was running against Matt Bevin, who many Republican-leaning voters were willing to break with because he was so mean and inept.
The results of this week’s vote rejecting the anti-abortion ballot initiative were similar to that gubernatorial race three years ago. It appears that the pro-Democratic position can win in Kentucky only if Republicans really overreach (so trying to ban abortion or give Matt Bevin a second term.)
Beshear won 23 of Kentucky’s 120 counties in 2019, the pro-abortion rights side won 22 counties. Twelve of those were the same counties:
Jefferson (Louisville)
Fayette (Lexington)
Franklin (Frankfort)
Warren (home of Western Kentucky University)
Campbell (suburb of Cincinnati)
Kenton (suburb of Cincinnati)
Madison (Lexington area)
Rowan (home of Morehead State University)
Woodford (Lexington area)
Henderson (Evansville, Indiana area)
Scott (Lexington area)
Nicholas (Lexington area)
Beshear won 67 percent of the vote in Jefferson County, the pro-abortion rights side won 71 percent on the amendment, Booker and McGrath won 60 percent in their Senate campaigns.
The path for Democrats to win in Kentucky is probably not in winning rural areas but running up big margins in core cities and then winning the suburban/exurban counties adjoining those cities. But that’s not easy–McGrath tried to do that and failed miserably.
Two thoughts on the mayoral election
Democrat Craig Greenberg talking about crime constantly was bad policy and perhaps not great politics either. There has been an increase in murders and carjacking in Louisville the last few years. Those are important issues to address. That said, the overwhelming majority of people in Louisville aren’t likely to be victims of violent crime. The overwhelming majority of areas in the city are quite safe. Having the candidates from both parties constantly talk about crime creates a flawed impression of the city and is likely to lead to bad policies and to ignoring other issues that affect people in Louisville. I worry the focus on crime and crime alone reflected a lack of a vision on other issues from either candidate.
Greenberg won narrowly over Republican Bill Dieruf (52-46 percent.) Dieruf is by all accounts a nice guy and not a Trump-type, so I’m not surprised he did fairly well. Dieruf was the Republican candidate. Republicans generally are perceived to be more police-friendly and tougher on crime than Democrats. Dieruf was endorsed by the local police unions. Greenberg’s campaign approach helped make the campaign essentially, “Which candidate will be tougher on crime?” That’s favorable terrain for a Republican candidate.
There’s a real divide between the center of the city and its eastern and southern suburban areas. Greenberg did worse and Dieruf better the further away you got from downtown. That’s not surprising—it’s the basic trend in every metro area in the country. And that explains both Greenberg’s campaign approach and some of Louisville’s problems. The view that the center city area of Louisville is dangerous and crime-ridden is often held most strongly by people who live far away from downtown and rarely go there. (Greenberg overwhelmingly won the areas that have the most violent crime.)
Greenberg had to appease many voters for whom crime is more of an issue of their perceptions than a reality of their day-to-day lives and Dieruf could play to those anxieties.
Jefferson County Public Schools Superintendent Marty Pollio faces some of the same challenges. Many of those most critical of Louisville’s public schools, particularly Republicans in the state legislature, have little daily contact with those schools. The critics often don’t live in Louisville, have kids in private schools or kids who aren’t school-aged. Polio must deal with the actual real problems in Louisville’s schools, but also a band of critics who don’t know much about the schools but are essentially rooting for them to fail.
This is an occasional newsletter on government and elections in Kentucky. You can sign up here.
perrylbacon@gmail.com