 So after waiting a week for the results from the Democratic Party primary taking place in Kentucky, we finally know who won. Mitch McConnell has won. And you might think, Mike, aren't you getting a little ahead of yourself here because the general election takes place in November? No, Mitch McConnell basically just secured his reelection because Amy McGrath ended up eking out a victory. And this is after she raised $40 million. In fact, it was more than 40 million. Charles Booker didn't even raise a million. And yet he almost beat her. And the reason why he almost beat her is because he actually had a message. He inspired people. Amy McGrath is running as a pro-Trump Democrat who doesn't have any policy ideas. She admitted that she would have voted to confirm Brett Kavanaugh had she been in the Senate at the time. And I don't know how she thinks she's going to win because her entire strategy, it hinges on peeling away Republicans from Mitch McConnell. Whereas Charles Booker had the right strategy. You activate non-voters. You bring out people and excite them, get them actually interested in politics, get them to vote for you. He did this by having a real message. He believed in Medicare for All, a Green New Deal. And this wasn't him, you know, trying to just pretend as if he's the next Bernie Sanders. He tied this specifically to the issues that people in Kentucky were dealing with. They need healthcare. They need jobs. So, I mean, this is really disappointing because this looks like it's almost, you know, a sure bet that Mitch McConnell is going to get reelected because Amy McGrath is the nominee. Now, I will say that in spite of this news, if I were Charles Booker, I would not concede. I would ask for a recount before conceding because there was a lot of shenanigans. There was voter suppression that did end up benefiting Amy McGrath. They reduced the number of polling places in areas of Kentucky with Black residents. You know, cutting down the number of polling places is going to lead to the more conservative candidate, most likely being able to pull off a victory because, I mean, if older people are the ones who oftentimes opt for the more conservative candidate, then they're not the ones who have to worry about working. But if you're trying to get off of work and you know, rush to the polls before it closes at six, you know, and you want to vote for Charles Booker, you're just at a disadvantage all around. So, you know, for Amy McGrath, the voter suppression helped her in the primary, but it's going to hurt her deeply in the general. And that would be true if Charles Booker were the candidate as well. But I mean, we'd still have a better chance overall because of what he's able to accomplish. Now let's get to some numbers here. So overall, Amy McGrath won with 45.4% of the vote to Charles Booker's 42.6%. And this was extremely close. As recently as this morning, Charles Booker was ahead by like six points, and then it kept jumping back and forth. And it seemed like he was going to pull this off. Now, once political polls announced that she had won, I mean, we found out that the Senate rating is that Kentucky will likely stay Republican. Shocker. Now, the thing about Amy McGrath is when you look at a poll from June, this took place between the 13th and 15th. She has 20 points behind Mitch McConnell. So she's going to need a miracle to win. And a recent poll from Data for Progress showed that she was 20 points behind. But Charles Booker was poised to do better than her. You know, he still had his work cut out for him. It wasn't going to be an easy victory in the event he were the nominee, but he would have had to make up 14 points. Whereas Amy McGrath will have to make up a 20 point deficit. Now apparently there's some hope because a poll from mid May showed that Amy McGrath was actually ahead of McConnell by one point. And this is according to RMG research. And apparently talking about term limits is what was kind of driving her support. So she doesn't really have any specific policies, but she found success not necessarily by positioning herself as a pro-Trump Republican, but by saying I support term limits. That was apparently really popular. So we'll see what happens. I genuinely hope that she beats Mitch McConnell, even if I can't stand her because she stands for nothing. She is a shallow Democrat. You know, the establishment wanted her over Charles Booker. And, you know, they got what they wanted, but it's really frustrating because you'd think that voters would know better. And, you know, people are starting to wake up, but I read, you know, some comments on Reddit and Facebook from people who were supporting Amy McGrath saying that they intended on voting for her. And there were zero policy reasons listed there. It was just, I'm voting for Amy McGrath because she's the one who could beat Mitch McConnell. Now, what were they basing it off of? I'm not necessarily that one poll. They were basing it off of she's just the stronger Democrat. And to them it's like they keep doing things that are against their own self-interest. It's not just in Kentucky. I mean, look at how many people in the primaries, according to exit polls, supported Medicare for all but voted against the candidate who supports Medicare for all. So voters, you know, Democratic Party primary voters in particular, they have this tendency to not vote for what they want when it comes to policy, but instead try to pretend as if they're political pundits, right? Try to gauge who's going to be the best person to take on the Republican. And this strategy is a failure. I mean, even Allison Lundegin Grimes, who got steamrolled by Mitch McConnell in 2014, came out and endorsed Charles Booker. This is someone who ran as another Republican-like Democrat. Not as bad as, you know, Amy McGrath, but she was still very conservative. She wouldn't even admit that she voted for Barack Obama, the sitting president at the time. But even she sees the writing on the wall realizes that that strategy of trying to pretend to be a Republican, try to out Republican, the Republican isn't going to work. So, you know, she endorsed Charles Booker and I commend her for that. But now we have Amy McGrath, who if she's going to have a chance in hell, she has to really emphasize term limits. But I mean, I don't know if that's going to be enough. I don't think it's going to be enough. I think that basically her victory secures Mitch McConnell another six years in the Senate, which is awful because he is one of the most destructive politicians in American history. And if she loses this, if she blows this election, every single person in America has a right to be extremely pissed off at her because, I mean, so much is writing on this, so much is writing on this. And you don't have a message. You don't have an agenda. What policies do you stand for besides term limits, which we found out about after you tried to just ride on being a pro-Trump Democrat? I mean, it's embarrassing, right? Democratic Party primary voters have got to do better. Stop pretending as if they're pundits and just vote for which policies they prefer. And I mean, the establishment has got to stop wading into these primary races. Chuck Schumer endorsed Amy McGrath. Chuck Schumer is a loser. Chuck Schumer is a clown. He is in power and he has no idea how to challenge Republicans. Oftentimes, he just lets, you know, Mitch McConnell run roughshot over him. He allows Mitch McConnell to confirm Trump's federal appointments because that allows for, you know, an earlier recess, which lets Democrats campaign. But I mean, it kind of undermines the whole purpose of electing Democrats in the first place. It's just, it's really frustrating, right? It's frustrating because we had an opportunity. Like, I'm not trying to imply that if Charles Booker were the nominee, he would definitely win. But would our chances be better? Yes. That's not me saying that. That's what the numbers indicate here. Much better than Amy McGrath. 20 points is a lot further off than 14 points. And yes, you'd have to make it up. But could it be possible? It is possible. Would he have to battle with voter suppression? Yes. But could he still win? Yes. Because if you have a message that resonates with people, that is extremely powerful. So I mean, I'm really disappointed because I see this as a missed opportunity. I see this as a missed opportunity to get out one of the most destructive politicians. And Democrats opted for one of the biggest clowns imaginable. I mean, Hillary Clinton is probably less conservative than Amy McGrath. So I mean, we'll see if it works. I mean, honestly, I wish her luck. I want her to beat Mitch McConnell. He's that bad. But is she going to? Probably not. And you know, Democrats have nobody to thank but themselves. They chose another clown of a candidate and, you know, we'll see how this strategy plays out for them. I'm assuming it's going to be like, you know, the other times when they choose conservatives. We'll see. This is really disappointing because we could have had someone who is a phenomenal candidate who would have been a great senator. And now it's over.