19 thoughts on “Could Matt Bevin Steal the Kentucky Governor’s Election?

  1. First Slate says, “If Bevin can substantiate his charges, they would warrant a full and fair hearing. Bevin has also asked for a ‘recanvassing’ of votes, essentially just to make sure that the reported vote totals line up with the totals from voting machines. That is also a reasonable request to make.”

    Then Slate concludes, “We may not live in ordinary times, but if the latter scenario comes to pass [i.e., Kentucky’s Legislature decides the election IAW applicable law], our democracy is in great trouble as we look ahead to 2020.”

    The conclusion doesn’t follow from the premises. Slate is crying wolf.


    1. How about you try to be more accurate in your “analysis”:

      The conclusion is based on the second half of the next to last paragraph:

      …” the Kentucky Legislature would have to abandon democratic values and allow the election loser to become the election winner,”…

      Not crying wolf, but pointing put that this is a distinct possibility.

      I admire your effort to obfuscate what the article said by pulling from a different portion and make it appear as if the conclusion had to do with your addition to the concluding paragraph. But once again, you have failed.

      Liked by 2 people

    2. RE: “The conclusion is based on the second half of the next to last paragraph”

      Not really. The Legislature is authorized under the state constitution to decide the election, as I noted. Slate admits that Bevin may be able to substantiate his claims, but assumes that he won’t. Slate then admits it is unlikely the Legislature will usurp the power of the voters, but assumes the legislature will make Bevin the winner, anyway.

      Slate’s reasoning is illogical from top to bottom.


  2. OK, how about a hypothetical.

    Say a governor’s race is won by Candidate A by 1000 votes. But then it is discovered that 5000 votes were cast by people who are dead, have moved away, or otherwise certify that they did not vote.

    There is no way to determine for which candidate the 5000 fraudulent votes were cast. There is no way to determine if Candidate A really won.

    What is the right thing to do?

    Hold a new election?

    Determine who cast the fraudulent votes and which party he favors?

    Who does the investigation? The legislature? That appears to be Kentucky’s solution. Is there a better one?


      1. Do you understand what a hypothetical is?

        The point it to look at the issue as a matter of principle, divorced from the particular case at hand. The question is how to handle such a case fairly.


        1. I do. I also understand what a straw man is.

          You’re just saying, “well, if something completely different happened, it would be correct for the legislature to overturn the election.”

          That said, hypothetically, toss out the offending ballots and let the chips fall where they may.

          Liked by 1 person

    1. Get over it. Your man Trump was repudiated at the polls. And deservedly so.

      Kentucky is particularly satisfying for Democrats because Trump and the GOP did their level best to make the vote in that state about the looming impeachment. Sweet.

      Turnout in Kentucky was over 42% compared to 31% in the previous gubernatorial election that put Bevin in office. THAT is the Trump effect and it is not good for the GOP anywhere. They survive on apathy.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Except for the unpopular governor’s race, the election was a sweep for the GOP, winning all the other statewide races, That is hardly a repudiation of Trump of the GOP in general.


        1. Silly rabbit. Trump carried Kentucky by 30 points. It is a long time very red, very backward state. But, thanks to Trump it now has a Democratic governor. Yes, Bevin was unpopular – too damn close and too similar to Trump.

          Liked by 1 person

    2. Hold a new election. That is what N.C. did after the discovery of a Republican operative falsifying absentee ballots in the 2018 election.

      If you don’t do that, you are invalidating the other million plus votes.

      Apparently, KY doesn’t have an automatic recount law. So it might be that the losing party has to pay and that could be the strategy of Bevin to avoid the cost.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Thanks, at least you know how to respond to a hypothetical.

        Yes, holding a new election is one way. The problem there is that once it is known a race is that close, turnout will be different than the first time. But still it is an acceptable choice.

        KY apparently allows the legislature to try to determine who cheated and correct the misdeed. That assumes they will proceed in a non-partisan manner. But it is also acceptable if done correctly.

        I’m really not sure which I prefer, but KY made their choice prior to knowing who would be involved.


        1. “That assumes they will proceed in a non-partisan manner” Not a safe assumption by any means in this day and age.

          It is my understanding that Bevins was pretty unpopular even within the KY GOP ranks. That being said, the party in power doesn’t want to give it up so they will protect the Party over the state (or Country). The Senate and House GOP members prove that daily.

          Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s