Kentucky election results: Governor Andy Beshear beats Daniel Cameron
By: USA TODAY
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Lucas AulbachLouisville Courier JournalView Comments
- Andy Beshear is Kentucky's current governor, a Democrat who has promoted his economic wins and bipartisan appeal during the campaign.
- Daniel Cameron is Kentucky's attorney general, a Republican with former President Donald Trump's endorsement who's worked to tie his opponent to President Joe Biden.
Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear is set to remain in office for four more years.
Beshear defeated Daniel Cameron, his Republican challenger who has spent the past four years as the state's attorney general. Beshear had 53% of the vote with 83% of statewide ballots counted.
In his victory speech, Beshear thanked voters and said Kentucky "made a choice" at the ballot box to reject divisive politics.
"This wasn't my win. This was our victory," he said. "It was a victory that sends a loud and clear message. ... This election shows who we are as Kentuckians."
Cameron conceded at 9:15 p.m., thanking supporters and encouraging them to pray for Beshear as he keeps the seat in 2024 and beyond.
"This was about future generations," Cameron said. "... We all want the same thing for our future generations. We want a better commonwealth."
Beshear was first elected in 2019 after previously serving as Kentucky's attorney general. He has been the only Democrat elected to statewide office throughout his time as governor.
Attendees of the Democratic party's election night gathering were celebrating Tuesday evening at Paristown Hall as more vote totals rolled in. A few hundred people were in attendance, including campaign volunteers, local business and union leaders and other supporters.
Election results:Follow state and Louisville races by clicking here
Cameron and Beshear took part in five debates leading up to Tuesday's election, with Beshear framing his opponent as "the most partisan candidate we have seen in a long time" and Cameron describing the race as one that pits "crazy vs. normal."
Beshear led in most polls throughout the campaign. After edging former Gov. Matt Bevin by about 5,000 votes in 2019, he built popularity in the state as he led Kentucky through the COVID-19 pandemic as well as the aftermath of the 2021 tornadoes in Western Kentucky and 2022 flooding that devastated the eastern portion of the state.
Still, his perceived advantage tightened toward Election Day. While an aggregation of polls at fivethirtyeight.com has had Beshear in the lead for most of the summer and fall, a poll released four days before the election by Emerson College Polling found the two were in a dead heat.
Cameron worked to tie his opponent to President Joe Biden, an unpopular figure in Kentucky, while touting his endorsement from former President Donald Trump, who took part in a tele-rally Monday night for the GOP. In turn, Beshear tried to promote a message that Kentucky voters are familiar with him and his "Team Kentucky" bipartisan track record.
Biden called Beshear on Tuesday to congratulate him on the win, according to the White House press office.
Groups that had supported Beshear in the campaign were quick to offer their congratulations Tuesday night.
Chris Hartman, executive director of the pro-LGBTQ+ advocacy group the Fairness Campaign, said the election was "a resounding victory for LGBTQ Kentuckians, and especially transgender kids, who were forced to bear the brunt of attacks not just from the Kentucky General Assembly, but also by Daniel Cameron, who sought to score cheap political points with anti-trans attack ads and harmful rhetoric."
Kentucky Education Association President Eddie Campbell, meanwhile, said Beshear's win "serves notice that Kentuckians value our public schools and strongly support our public school educators."
This story will be updated.
This story will be updated.
Reach Lucas Aulbach at laulbach@courier-journal.com.
View CommentsFeatured Weekly Ad
Tags
Who is online
83 visitors
I watched and agreed with Andy’s campaign and past performance. I’m surprised that you aren’t mortified by the red neck, racist, twice Trump voters voting for him. What does that say about Andy, KT voters and you?
I dont answer your questions.
I’m sorry that you are afraid or unable to.
Most of your questions are either senseless or irrelevant.
Most feel the same way about your comments, you could sum them all up as orange man bad.
So you say, JR. Good dodge. We don’t need any uncomfortable questions.
You think that is a legitimate question?
If you want to say something about the article just say it. Your trying to be "cute" with me will never work.
or dumb
Yes, state Repubs way overplayed their hands on abortion.
Great results so far in Kentucky and Ohio. Virginia is the next big one.
Good to see Beshear won a second term and Prop 1 in Ohio won. Seems that abortion is still a very hot-button issue. Seems that the right doesn't seem to grasp that they are presently on the wrong end of history of the Abortion issue.
I heard that the marijuana issue passed in Ohio as well but haven't confirmed it.
I find that surprising. Maybe they finally saw the light on how much cash that little green weed can generate
They saw how much Michigan was making off of it. Getting weed in Ohio was as easy as driving over the border.
MSNBC says the Democrats have the upper hand in the Virginia legislature races, but it is too early to call the winner.
I believe I heard that at least one Republican incumbent has already lost in each house.
Henrico county, which has had a Republican Senator for years, voted Dem this time. That's Richmond area.
Pretty sure the Dems will keep the Senate. House is a toss-up at this time.
Dems will keep the Virginia State Senate.
And they have won half of the seats in the House of Delegates, with a few races not yet called. The Dems may have flipped the House by a very narrow margin.
The Democrats won both chambers in Virginia legislature. Great, great night.
I stayed up long enough to see the House flip, then hit the sack.
No red wave again.
It's a blue wave.
Do you think maybe voters are fed up with MAGA empty promises?
Abortion was a major issue, obviously in Ohio, and also in Virginia, but the Republicans are making it clear today that they will continue to pound on the issue.
With regard to Kentucky, the biggest factors were probably likeability and competence, both of which Beshear has in spades.
As for the MAGA empty promises, we can only hope that increasing numbers of voters come to understand how hollow they are. Was that realization a factor yesterday? To some extent yes. Anti-abortion is a MAGA position. Beshear's opponent was a full on MAGA, strongly supported by Trump. In Virginia, Youngkin, not too convincingly, tries to present himself as something other than MAGA. That didn't sell.
I just heard a report that the falsely named "Moms for Liberty" school board candidates lost in races around the country yesterday. Further evidence that MAGA doesn't sell.
hahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!
I've heard them called a terrorist group
Virginia Republicans ran on parent's rights but not understanding not wanting to be one is the first part of parent rights
I remember a few years back when there was a push in Virginia to require a transvaginal ultrasound before an abortion. Voters put a pretty quick stop to that.
Good for them! That is a wholly not relevant procedure and way too invasive for anyone's comfort
Abortion restrictions lose elections,
The thing is that the democrats drown their opponents with false ads that never mention the "restrictions" and simply lie about the choice.
That seems to be all that is needed to get mindless, stupid women out to the polls.
Anyone who stayed home deserves every bit of the high prices and the unsafe streets.
That's the problem with the new Republican coalition, they aren't as likely to turnout in non-Presidential elections as the more affluent voters who've become Democrats. Republicans now get massively outspent by Democrats and their special interest groups and rely on voters who aren't as likely to turn out unless Trump is on the ballot. That's the real problem Trump causes the Republican party.
For instance, in Ohio, liberal dark money PACS like Soros and the Hamas supporting Arabella Advisors spent millions promoting abortion, giving that side a massive spending edge on the issue. In Kentucky, Virginia and Ohio, Democrats enjoyed about a 20% advantage in money spent.
That's just not true. Glenn Youngkin lied and said that Democrats are pushing for abortion for any reason up to the time of birth. On the whole, they are not. It's pretty similar to when Republicans accused Northam of advocating for post-birth abortion, which was a lie.
Of course they do. What restrictions on abortion have democrats proposed?
The elites and the rich have found a home in the democrat party. They fund it well.
It is the democrats that have framed the abortion argument. Those who call for restrictions are treated as if they are calling for all out bans.
What is the difference between a 15-week restriction, which includes exceptions for rape, incest and the life of the mother vs let's say a 3rd trimester restriction?
What in the world drives people out to vote based on those two choices?
I don't know why Younkin would even mention the issue in the first place.
As to Northam:
Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam (D.) commented Wednesday about a controversial 40-week abortion bill and in so doing said the law allows an abortion to take place after the infant's birth.
Northam on Abortion Bill: Infant Could Be Delivered and Then 'Physicians and the Mother' Could Decide If It Lives (freebeacon.com)
Why should there be any restrictions on abortion??
The moral argument would be that at some point a living child is involved.
There is a fact that the GOP has to face: Most Americans don't want any restrictions before the third trimester. There is no getting away from it. So, the political answer that Trump gave Kristen Welker is the correct one: Leave it to the people to decide.
We may end up with no restrictions. Future generations will judge us.
YES and it is nobody but the woman involved business.
Using abortion is not being reduced, it is making a good decision based on individual circumstances.and no practical method is totally effective.
Pencils have erasers, They make white out to fix ink problems and computers have deleted and people can have abortion all for the same reason
SO?
1 It still solves the problem
2 There are plenty of dummies
3 Do you really want dummies reproducing?
Democrats were happy with Roe v. Wade, which allowed for restrictions.
The Democrats have seen what happens in states where abortion bans or near-bans have been implemented. Anti-abortion laws are restricting women's access to medical care during miscarriages that threaten the lives of the mothers. Abortion bans are sometimes reason to deny women treatment for diseases such as cancer. We've seen what happens when the "pro-life" crowd decides that women's lives are expendable, and we want no part of it.
And that statement about Northam is just not true. He was speaking about an infant born with deformities incompatible with life, which unfortunately are medical reality. His words were taken out of context deliberately, which is pretty dishonest. He advocates for comfort care for infants who cannot live, rather than painful procedures which can only prolong a painful life. Here are his words.
You do know that there are some pretty severe birth defects incompatible with life, don't you, Vic? That's what "nonviable" means. That those babies will die, no matter what we do, and that it is sometimes better to keep them comfortable and let them pass gently than to keep them alive with ventilators and nasogastric tubes and IVs while they're in pain that is difficult to treat without overdosing them, because they're newborn?
The problem with Roe was that it was unconstitutional. You can do the same thing the right way through the US Congress.
So, you want no restrictions. A 15-week restriction is not a ban. Every state gets to vote on it and the majority will eventually have everything it wants. In some states like California, you can have an abortion right up to "viability."
And that statement about Northam is just not true. He was speaking about an infant born with deformities
If that's the case nothing really needed to be said.
As I have already stated in post 7.1.9 it is obvious that most Americans don't want 15-week restrictions and maybe in favor of no restrictions at all. The political side of that is that the GOP must accept that or suffer losses in times when they should be winning.
So, I should have access to your medical charts, then? You believe you have no right to privacy.
There is no such Constitutional right. Even Justice Ginsburg warned that the ruling would not stand for long.
The question you ask is a moral one. Unfortunately, it is not in the Constitution.
Congress can do it.
Quote me saying that. You can't. Once again, you put words in my mouth. A dishonest tactic.
Republicans have lost the trust of Americans on the topic of abortion. "We'll respect Roe v. Wade as settled law", but they overturned it. "We'll make sure there are exceptions for rape, incest, and the life of the mother." Not in every state, they didn't.
They've lied repeatedly to the American people on this topic, and the people mean to keep them from getting a foothold to do the same thing in more states. Kudos to Ohio and Virginia for keeping government small and stopping government overreach into our lives.
You realize Northam was being asked specifically about abortion, and late-term abortion, right? That he was referring to a bill that would ease restrictions on third-trimester abortions in Virginia, which required 3 physicians to agree that continuing the pregnancy would threaten the woman's life? You're aware that another legislator had specifically asked if a mother could request an abortion while actually in labor, right? Northam was responding to that question, in the case of a nonviable fetus.
His words were dishonestly taken out of context. And that has been explained on this forum more than once.
But still, the anti-women's life crowd persists. And that is why they keep losing on this issue. They've lost trust, and shown themselves to be pro-forced birth and possible death for the mother, rather than pro-life.
Then HIPAA should be repealed.
Why?
I think it always will, but I don't think the GOP can afford to debate the issue any longer. It is now up to the people.
Which restrictions in particular did Democrats support under Roe V Wade, and which restrictions did the Supreme Court liberal ever rule were Constitutional?
What part of the constitution says it should be restricted?
The Constitution does not mention abortion. It does not restrict or abolish or promote it. If one wants a national law on abortion the US congress needs to do it.
Otherwise, each state will vote for its own abortion laws.
A 15-week restriction is not a ban
Excellent point. Another case of Democrats and their MSM allies weaponizing language. If a state passes a law allowing for unrestricted abortion up to 20 weeks, with restrictions thereafter, the lapdogs will faithfully follow the abortion industry in calling it an abortion "ban." Similar to how they call a school moving a book to the section of the library a book's publisher recommends it for as a "book ban." But, if a school removes "To Kill a Mockingbird" from the curriculum as happened last week in Washington, the media will dutifully described it as an attempt to protect students from racism. If a "conservative" district does the exact same thing and removes a book from the curriculum it's "banning books".
Every issue is framed to the maximum possible benefit of the Democratic Party.
That's not how the Constitution works, at all.
Then by calling others pro-forced birth, but favoring restrictions yourself , you are using dishonest tactics.
And will continue to be explained and explained and explained....ad nauseum.
My daughter is a nurse in a NICU. She works with babies that have been born prematurely and with other problems. I'm sure she loses patients but she never talks about it. She still believes that abortion is a right. I think her convictions are even stronger since working with very sick babies
Because it's about patients' privacy, to which they apparently have no right.
Roe stipulated for restrictions on third trimester abortions. How often have Dems tried to remove all restrictions on third trimester abortions?
What restrictions on third trimester abortions did the Court ever uphold? Answer =Zero.
Because roe never really mattered, even before it was replaced by a new theory in Casey. It's the companion case of Doe, that mandated the broad health exception (worry!) that made any attempt to actually ban third trimester abortion impossible.
ow often have Dems tried to remove all restrictions on third trimester abortions?
why would they bother removing what the Court held were illegal for 50 years?
So there are no states with third trimester abortion restrictions?
That's news to me. And everyone else.
"Are you for abortion on demand for any reason at any stage of the pregnancy"
Are you for timing restrictions on other things people might want to get?
Not form 1973 until Doe. Let's say Pre Doe a state passed an actual negotiated compromise that goes much farther in protecting abortion than just the third trimester cutoff. The law only prohibits abortions of fully viable babies after 30 weeks of pregnancy except in cases of rape, incest or risk to the mother's life.
The law would never pass scrutiny under Doe/Casey and would be unconstitutional. If Democrats had their way in Congress with their last abortion bill, the law would be thrown out today as well.
If there has to be a risk to any aspect of the woman's health, that's a restriction, Sean.
If all you have to do is claim stress or anyother subjective worry in order to get an abortion on the baby's due date, there's no actual restricton. It's just a talking point.
And its not even like they need to do that. An abortionist testified to Congress that ALL pregnancies create a risk to women's health, therefore an abortion can never be restricted under the standard they made up. The exception litterally swallows the entire rule.
Did you read the Virginia law that Northam discussed? Three doctors had to concur that a woman's health was at risk to allow for a third-trimester abortion. That's a restriction, Sean.
All pregnancies DO create a risk to women's health. Are you going to argue with science? The truth is the same no matter who says it.
Congrats. Put those two sentences together and you've proven Democrats don't support any restrictions on abortion, nor were they allowed under the Roe regime.
Sure, Sean. Republicans felt the need to lie about Northam because he was supported loosening (not eliminating, even) restrictions that didn't actually exist, anyway. Makes perfect sense.
No, the problem with Roe is that it didn't go far enough.
There is no rational or legal reason to restrict abortion at all.
After 15 weeks it is a ban
Before 40 weeks, it's a ban.
They didn’t lie about northam, they quoted him accurately..
The vvirigna law simply made it easier to obtain abortions by addressing who could perform them (doesn’t need to always be a doctor) and where ( doesn’t always need to be a hospital). It didn’t, because it couldn’t constitutionally, create restrictions as to when abortions Could be performed. As you demonstrated, under roe line of cases, a woman could abort her baby until birth.,
Of course they lied about him. They tried to make "we'll let this baby who unfortunately was born with deformities incompatible with life die peacefully" into "we support infanticide" by deliberately taking his words out of context.
I already demonstrated that there were restrictions on third-trimester abortions.
Those are facts, Sean. You continuing to say otherwise doesn't negate them, and you repeating the falsehood about Northam doesn't make it true.
Much as I appreciatre your desire to deflct this into a discussion about Northam, they quoted him accurately. It's a lie to say otherwise.
trated that there were restrictions on third-trimester abortions.
You demonstrated, apparently unknowingly, that it was unconstituional to ban abortions up to the moment of birth during the Roe era. Pointing out that states can restrict prevent plumbers from performing abortions in the garage is a deflection. The issue is whether a state can ban abortions based on time of gestation, not whether abortion can be regulated like hair cuttting, or medicine or massage.
. The original claim is that Democrats don't support abortion up until birth and you've proven that they do, or at least those who support making Roe statutory law do.
What restrictons, if any, do you favor that would prevent a completely healthy mother from aborting a late term pregnancy of a healthy, viable fetus?
They dishonestly left out the context of the conversation.
There were, and still are, restrictions on third trimester abortions.
you keep saying that yet despite numerous oppurtinities, you've yet to provide a single example of the Supreme Court allowing a state to prevent abortions at any time up until birth. Not one.
But of course you can't do that and you know it since you've already provided the reasoning why. Unless you don't belive the "science" anymore?
Since you can't provide an exanple of a state successully prevenitng the abortions of viable babies, why don't you at least lay out what restrictions you favor that would prevent a completely healthy mother from aborting a late term pregnancy of a healthy, viable fetus? Or is it fair to say you support abortion until birth?
Your refusal to acknowledge that there are restrictions on third-trimester abortions does not eliminate those restrictions, Sean. You have repeatedly agreed with a known falsehood regarding Ralph Northam, but just as repeatedly dismissed the fact that the out-of-context quote was taken from an interview about restrictions on third-trimester abortions, because that doesn't fit your narrative. You want to believe the lie (Northam supports infanticide), but don't want to admit the truth (third-trimester abortion restrictions exist).
By the way, that provision has been unconstiitonal since the day Roe was decided.
You can keep saying it. The restrictions still exist and are enforced. Roe allowed for restrictions on third-trimester abortions. So did Doe - the woman's health had to be at risk. That is decided by medical providers; in the case of Virginia, three physicians must concur. All legal under the provisions of those rulings.
I do because it's 100% true, which is why you can't rebut it. No temporal based restriction has been upheld by the Court. Not one. No state has been able to outlaw abortion of viable babies, even with exceptions for the life of the mother.
So did Doe - the woman's health had to be at risk
yes, I've been saying that since the beginning. Now understand how broadly health is defined and you'll understand why it's impossible to ever restrict abortion under that standard
. in the case of Virginia, three physicians must concur. All legal under the provisions of those rulings.
First, that's not an actual temporal restriction. Second, even that requirement was specifically found unconstitutional in the Doe case. The Court held that any law that requires more than one doctor's opinion was Unconstitutional
. So no, Virginia hasn't enforced that provision since 1973.
If no physician will perform such an abortion due to fears of prosecution, the law is enforced.
Abortion clinics seem not to have received the memo about third trimester abortions not being banned, nor about trimesters, in general.
I was discussing the conditions required for abortion to be legal in the third trimester, so yes, it is.
Actual Virginia law:
"substantially and irremediably impair the mental or physical health of the woman" is a higher bar than you'd like to have us believe.
The guy won election in Kentucky before it was an issue too. Incumbents tend to win. The other statewide republicans won their contests easily. It funny how republicans would apparently win every election if it Weren’t for abortion.
You can just as easily say trump candidates lose when trump is not on the ballot. Cameron was endorsed by trump and ran as the trump guy. The republicans who didn’t won.
Did he run on restricting abortion?
All of the Republicans did in Kentucky. One lost. It's almost as if other issues are involved too.
Ah...I see the other voice has shown up. Just can't accept that most people want the right to abortions. They will just have to take the bread and blood and shove it
I still do not know why having an abortion is anybody else's business.
It's not. But some people just can't seem to help be nosy busy bodies.