Ashley Judd for Senate?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Cosmic, Mar 2, 2013.

?

Should Judd Run for Senate?

  1. Yes, and declare intent to run immediately.

  2. Yes, but declare intent to run later.

  3. No, express disinterest immediately.

  4. No, express interest in running somewhere else.

  5. Do nothing.

  6. Other

Multiple votes are allowed.
Results are only viewable after voting.
  1. Cosmic Mystic

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2004
    Messages:
    3,399
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ashley Judd spoke at George Washington University on a wide range of issues, yesterday. She answered questions, but would not specifically comment on rumors over her considering a run for Kentucky state Senate in 2014. She would be running against the Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell. The rumors have been floating around in public for months. If she didn't want to do it, she could've simply put this to rest yesterday.

    What do you think she should do, and why?
     
  2. Lantern Venom Emerald Echo Podcast Co-Host

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2005
    Messages:
    11,130
    Likes Received:
    424
    I have no problem with a celeb crossing over to politics as long as they do their homework. But the Senate? I've never liked the idea of voting for someone with no official political record. I know she has some issues near and dear to her heart like wildlife conservation and AIDS research, but there is a big difference between activism and leadership.
     
  3. hippie_hunter The King is Back!

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2003
    Messages:
    53,331
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think that Judd would be an absolute disaster for the Democrats in 2014, Kentucky is a state where Obama won less than 40% of the vote. McConnell is extremely vulnerable in 2014 and I think that with the right Democrat, like Steve Beshear, he can be picked off. But an uber-liberal like Judd who has bashed Kentucky's political leanings and sources of industry, it's going to probably end up with Democrats losing across the ballot throughout Kentucky.

    And it would expose the Democratic Party as having the same problems as the Republicans where a loud fringe vocal heavy left minority is pushing out the majority moderates. Except it could be even worse for the Democrats because while the beltway GOP has always looked down on candidates like Christine O'Donnell, Joe Miller, Todd Akin, Sharon Angle, Ken Buck, and Richard Mourdock, beltway Democrats are said to be extremely willing to embrace Judd, which could also create an image of disconnect and further destroy the Democratic Party in the South.
     
  4. Schlosser85 Registered

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Messages:
    0
    Likes Received:
    5
    I have no issue with celebrities crossing over to politics if they know what they're talking about, but I think in general they're better-served as activists and lobbyists for the issues they're passionate about than running for political office themselves.

    And Judd is known as a staunch uber-liberal even by Hollywood standards, who has turned a lot of people off with her outspokenness.

    I don't see someone like her winning an election somewhere like Kentucky.
     
  5. elsewhere The Dark Knight

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2009
    Messages:
    2,091
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well she's certainly easier on the eyes than McConnell.
     
  6. Webfoot Hero West Coaster

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2012
    Messages:
    12,633
    Likes Received:
    1,686
    How about the Democrats actually run a person who lives in the state. Judd has lived in neighboring TN for most of the past 20 years. She should run from there instead. If you haven't lived in a state consecutively for more than a year, you shouldn't be able to run there. Reminds me of how Al Franken and Hilary Clinton got Senate seats in states they barely had enough time to move into.
     
  7. hippie_hunter The King is Back!

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2003
    Messages:
    53,331
    Likes Received:
    0
    Franken did live in Minnesota. And at least Clinton ran in a seat that was appropriately Democratic and used her position to actually be Upstate New York's Senator as opposed to just using it as a path for her to become President.

    Judd on the other hand has bashed Kentucky, is not from Kentucky, and doesn't represent the political views of Kentucky. She would be an absolute disaster for her party and if she wants the Democratic Party to try and rebuild themselves in the South, she would step aside and not take the encouragements of the beltway Democrats to run.
     
  8. Optimus_Prime_ Registered

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2006
    Messages:
    5,667
    Likes Received:
    0
    Judd is polling very well in Kentucky right now actually, especially with women.
     
  9. hippie_hunter The King is Back!

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2003
    Messages:
    53,331
    Likes Received:
    0
    There are three reasons why Judd is polling well right now:

    1. She is the only potential candidate that would bring a AAA name to the ballot. The Democratic primary right now only has a failed 2010 Congressional candidate and other potential candidates include a State Auditor and Secretary of State. Judd's name is a lot more well known than those two on account that most people aren't going to know who the hell most of these people are.

    2. She polls well, particularly among women, because Judd stars in movies that focus on the female demographic and women in general tend to lean a bit more Democratic than men do.

    3. Mitch McConnell is extremely unpopular, being Senate Minority Leader has made McConnell a very unpopular man, the same way being Senate Majority Leader has ruined Harry Reid's popularity. Remember when Sharron Angle was not only doing well in polls against Reid, but was also beating him? Look at how that turned out when people realized how ****ing crazy she was.

    4. Mitch McConnell has always had elections that were always close for comfort. Back in 2008, McConnell was in a worse position where he was statistically tied with Bruce Lunsford in a year where Democrats were doing rather well in Southern states. He barely won his first Senate election and had tough challenges from other opponents as well.

    In the end though, Judd would be a disaster for Democrats for many reasons:

    1. Her political positions are well outside the mainstream of Kentuckians. Ashley Judd represents heavily left-wing political ideologists. She's a pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, Republican bashing liberal. When Judd's political viewpoints become more well known, she isn't going to fare as well as she is now. And the fact that she hasn't even lived in Kentucky will probably hurt her as well, this isn't like in New York where the ideologically appropriate Hillary Clinton of Arkansas ran, this is someone who is not in the mainstream of Kentucky voters.

    2. Ashley Judd was one of Barack Obama's more vocal celebrity supporters. She's trying to run in a region that looks down upon the so-called liberal establishment of Hollywood where in their minds that loves to go down on Obama. Barack Obama is also very unpopular in Kentucky and he performed below 40% in the state in 2012. This isn't like the West Virginia Senate race where Republicans failed to tie Joe Manchin and Earl Ray Tomblin to Obama, Republicans can very easily tie Judd to a very unpopular President.

    3. Judd brings a lot of personal controversies to the table, in January of this year she announced that she is divorcing her husband, made comments attacking the coal industry in one of the top coal producing states in the country, and a few years ago decided to flash her breasts to the paparazzi. A fresh divorce and antics like that don't make you look very good.

    4. Judd is attempting to run for the Senate in Kentucky at a time where Democrats are facing complete and utter disaster in the South. The party is on the verge of becoming the party of white liberals and blacks and has seen massive defeats since Obama has come to office. Nominating an extremely liberal woman from Hollywood who has few ties to the state she's running with the support of beltway Democrats in doesn't help the party's image in the slightest.

    5. Kentucky's Democratic establishment fears that Judd will end up creating a down ballot effect where with her on the top of the ballot in 2014 could cause Democrats across the state to lose the Kentucky House of Representatives and could make it hard for them to find someone to succeed Beshear in 2015.

    6. The Kentucky Democratic establishment doesn't want Judd to run. Judd's establishment support primarily comes from the beltway Democrats, who aren't looked upon fondly in Kentucky. John Yarmuth, is reportedly the only Kentucky Democrat that is supportive of a Judd run. It's hard for a candidate to be successful when the state chapter of a party isn't all that enthusiastic for them.
     
  10. Cosmic Mystic

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2004
    Messages:
    3,399
    Likes Received:
    0
    I also feel that it would be a blunder and possible disaster to run her. But in my gut, I can see her finding a path to win, especially considering Mitch's dismal approval ratings. She's highly intelligent and capable, but there's alot of baggage there, and ample opportunities for mudslinging. Is she ready and willing to deal with the inevitable barrage? I'm not sure. I would advise her to turn it down.

    But still, what if she does run and win the seat? I think it would be huge.
     
  11. hippie_hunter The King is Back!

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2003
    Messages:
    53,331
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think that if Judd ran in a state that is more reliably liberal she would have a great chance of a political future. As you say she is intelligent and capable, but Kentucky is just the wrong state for her.
     
  12. hippie_hunter The King is Back!

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2003
    Messages:
    53,331
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ashley Judd Is Making Kentucky Democrats Nervous

    If the actress runs against Mitch McConnell, Democrats fear she could hurt the party brand in the Bluegrass State.

    The honeymoon is over for Ashley Judd.

    At a time when Democrats in Washington are having second thoughts about embracing Ashley Judd as their standard-bearer against Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell in 2014, Kentucky Democrats are waving red flags about the actress, arguing that her candidacy plays into the GOP’s strengths and tarnishes the party brand in the Bluegrass State.

    “She’s gonna have a tough row to hoe,” said Jim Cauley, who ran Gov. Steve Beshear’s 2007 campaign and also worked on President Obama’s 2004 Senate campaign. “She doesn't fit the damn state. That's her problem. I don't think she fits the voters of the state of Kentucky.”

    As she gets closer to an announcement of her intentions, Judd has garnered national media attention. Strategists predict that a Judd-McConnell faceoff would be one of the most expensive and closely watched Senate races in recent years. Judd's backers say she is the only Democrat who could raise enough money to not only attack McConnell's record, but also beat Kentucky’s longest-serving senator.

    Other Democrats in the state, including a top donor in Northern Kentucky, disagree. They argue she has not been in the state enough to mount a credible attack on McConnell, who will be ready for the fight. Karl Rove’s super PAC American Crossroads attacked Judd with a Web video earlier this year for living in Tennessee.

    "I'm in this to win it, and I don't believe Ashley Judd is in it to win it," said Nathan Smith, a leading Kentucky Democratic donor, who is also the head of the Manufactured Housing Institute. Smith helped raise money for Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio, Sen. Joe Donnelly of Indiana, and Beshear. He’s hosted Hillary Rodham Clinton at his house. He said he called Judd about 10 days ago, prepared to give his advice to the actress, but hasn’t heard back.

    "If she was to call me tonight, I would give her some advice and I doubt that she'd be excited to come back for round two of that conversation. I don't care how many movies she's made." Smith said.

    To Bluegrass State Democrats who worry about winning back the state Senate and keeping the state House, national Democrats are more concerned with forcing Republicans to spend money in Kentucky and distract McConnell from his day job as Republican Senate leader. They see Judd as a political infatuation. The actress, they say, would have trouble winning a state Mitt Romney carried by nearly 23 points in 2012.

    Asked if his reaction amounted to sour grapes because Judd hadn’t called him personally, Smith told a story about a recent high school basketball event that drew some 20,000 people. He said he talked to dozens who were skeptical about Judd.

    “Maybe she can become a senator without talking to anybody from Kentucky,” Smith said.

    Top Democrats who are cool to Judd’s candidacy say they’d like to see Kentucky Secretary of State Alison Lundergan Grimes get into the race. The daughter of a former state party chair, Grimes defeated her GOP challenger by a wide margin. State Democratic officials stop short of calling for a primary if Judd enters the race, but they give voice to a wider concern that McConnell will get whom he wants in Judd—an opponent who can be tied to the president.

    “Electing Ashley Judd gets a Republican Legislature elected. That's what I see at stake here. Your perspective is different if you're in New York or Los Angeles. They don't live here. We do. Judd's candidacy makes it seamlessly easy to Obama-ize this election,” one Kentucky Democratic strategist said.
     
  13. C. Lee Superherohype Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2002
    Messages:
    71,913
    Likes Received:
    24,583
    I'm a Kentuckian...and I've been trying to get rid of McConnell for years....I'll vote for her.
     
  14. Kelly #RESIST

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    70,135
    Likes Received:
    120
    lol.....I have a feeling there are a lot of you. That was me C. Lee in 2008 when I voted for Obama. Look what happened.....:dry: :csad: :doh:
     
  15. snyderrocks Registered

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2013
    Messages:
    167
    Likes Received:
    0
    she will not win .
     
  16. Kelly #RESIST

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    70,135
    Likes Received:
    120
    You are probably right because she will not have the backing of the "blue dog" democrats that run the Democrat Machine in Kentucky....she is far too radical for their liking.

    I actually agree with a lot of what she says, and respect the hell out of her volunteer work with women's rights around the world, IMO, I think we need someone like her to shake things up....kind of the way that Cruz shook things up the other day, or Paul did with his 13 hour filibuster.

    I think Washington needs some shaking up by the younger generation....

    But, as you say, she won't win...or really even be given a fighting chance.
     
  17. SV Fan Registered

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2008
    Messages:
    8,162
    Likes Received:
    30
    Fair enough with Paul but Cruz is an idiot(or probably better put panders to idiots). I don't think going on ridiculous witch hunts = shaking up things in a positive way
     
  18. Kelly #RESIST

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    70,135
    Likes Received:
    120
    Oh please, Witch Hunts????? how dramatic....

    To each his own, although I don't think your stance makes you an idiot... :dry: Just different.

    I have been an advocate of Feinstein and her fight on the gun issue. I respect her passion...

    BUT, the idea that..."I've been here for 22 years" means you can't question her in any way....that kind of thinking in Washington needs to move on. Could he have been less agressive? maybe, that is the Constitutional Lawyer in him...they don't know any other way, but him questioning her, was EXACTLY what is supposed to happen in debate. That is how committee works. "Do it because I said so....." doesn't cut it with me. "I've been here for 22 years, so I don't need another side of the issue debate..." definitely does not cut it with me. When I start hearing that coming from Politicians, it is time for them to move on....I really like her, always have respected her......but committee is for questioning, not for slaps on the back, good job, lets vote, my way because I'm head of the committee.

    I don't agree with Cruz on a lot of things, but I will damn sure never call ANYONE on questioning in committee on an issue. Ever....
     
    #18 Kelly, Mar 16, 2013
    Last edited: Mar 16, 2013
  19. SV Fan Registered

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2008
    Messages:
    8,162
    Likes Received:
    30
    His question was stupid. He asked do we put any limits on the first amendment in regards to putting limits on the 2nd, the answer is yes of coarse we have limits on the first amendment(ie we don't allow kiddy porn for instance). So what exactly was his point? He is lawyer from Harvard for god sakes you think he would know better(of coarse he was looking to make stink so he can line up his Fox news gig in 6 years))

    When I am talking about witch hunt I think of Cruz bringing up the fictitious "Friend of Hamas" group during the Hagel hearings. I am sorry you lose any credibility you have when you get your talking points from right wing blogs that don't check facts
     
    #19 SV Fan, Mar 16, 2013
    Last edited: Mar 16, 2013
  20. Kelly #RESIST

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    70,135
    Likes Received:
    120
    I don't think his question was stupid....BUT, his question did have an answer.

    This was actually his question...

    Had she answered his question similar to the way you answered it....I would have applauded her, but she didn't....she answered it with a quip, that REALLY had absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand.

    The issue had hand had nothing to do with who she is, what her education was, or how many years she has been in Congress....

    I agreed with her when she said that there were over 1,000 guns that were exempt from the bill....I understood that, and she should have stayed with that, and answered his question.

    My problem is not with her stand on this issue, my problem is that instead of answering a question that was posed to her, that had an answer, an answer that she should (and I believe) did know the answer....she chose to be more petty, and put up as nothing more than that group that Rand Paul described on the Republican side....she showed herself to be an old Democrat that has stopped listening, stopped answering, and simply because they are who they are, and because they have been there for decades, we should bow down to them and shut up. THAT IS MY PROBLEM...
     
  21. hippie_hunter The King is Back!

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2003
    Messages:
    53,331
    Likes Received:
    0
    Both of California's Senators suffer from that problem. That because they are in the Senate for such a long time, they are entitled to certain special treatment. Boxer is far worse than Feinstein in the attitude problem IMO.
     
  22. Kelly #RESIST

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    70,135
    Likes Received:
    120
    Oh totally agree, I was pretty shocked that Feinstein reacted in the way she did.....she is actually one of my fav Senators over the years. Not so much now...

    As far as Boxer? I cannot stand the woman, she is right up there in the despise column with Pelosi and Wasserman-Schultz
     
  23. SV Fan Registered

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2008
    Messages:
    8,162
    Likes Received:
    30
    Ted "Friends of Hamas" Cruz doesn't deserve a straight up answer, especially when he asked a stupid question that is easy to poke holes into when he was basically trying to get a soundbite on Rush Limbaugh of standing up to the man. I am pretty sure he will be a star at CPAC and that's where he belongs at that clown show.

    In the little time Cruz has spent in the Senate he basically has show he deserves absolutely no respect basically and got the answer he deserved.
     
    #23 SV Fan, Mar 16, 2013
    Last edited: Mar 16, 2013
  24. Webfoot Hero West Coaster

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2012
    Messages:
    12,633
    Likes Received:
    1,686
    So just because he questions one of the dingbats from CA in a way you don't like and is a conservative, he's an idiot and a clown? Nice to see that people are so tolerant of the other side of the coin.:whatever:
     
  25. SV Fan Registered

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2008
    Messages:
    8,162
    Likes Received:
    30
    Cruz is nothing more then an attention ****e looking to build up his stock so he can hawk books and other products in the future. As I pointed out above I think his referencing the fictional group Friends of Hamas in a legit Senate hearing speaks volume of where the guys head is at and his legitimacy as a politician. His question for Feinstein was yet another example of hey look at me far right wing nuts, I am standing up to the man.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"