One of the vagaries of our system of government is: no one is running against Mitch McConnell for the position of most powerful person in the Senate.
But if Amy McGrath wins in Kentucky, she'll be one of several junior Democratic Senators, and Mitch McConnell will be out.
But if Amy McGrath wins in Kentucky, she'll be one of several junior Democratic Senators, and Mitch McConnell will be out.
If McGrath wins, Mitch isn't majority leader anymore. If the Republicans hold the majority they'll get to pick a new majority leader. But the Grim Reaper is no more. He doesn't just get knocked out of the top spot, he's gone.
It's weird, some of the ways our political system has evolved, particularly since it was designed by men who very soberly and somberly refused to design it with political parties in mind while they were choosing teams in their heads.
The GOP goes into ever national election with the mindset that they're not just voting for Senators and Representatives, they're voting for majority control. They're not just voting for Presidents, but for judges.
I don't want a Senate full of Democrats who vote like Republicans, but I tell you now, Amy McGrath could be 100% indistinguishable from Mitch McConnell in every single position she holds, and I'd still endorse her as long as she's caucusing with the Democrats.
Because if she's there, that means he's not. They've lost their Grim Reaper.
And if she's caucusing with the Democrats, then her presence is a "vote" for Democratic control of the Senate.
And if she's caucusing with the Democrats, then her presence is a "vote" for Democratic control of the Senate.
Is Amy McGrath indistinguishable from Mitch McConnell? No, no she is not. But as the right-wing hate machine starts to contemplate the prospect of going into 2021 without Mitch, or maybe without the Senate, expect them to amplify any and all criticisms of her.
