Kentucky's 6th Congressional District election, 2018

Elections in Kentucky, 2018

• General election: Nov. 6
• Voter registration deadline: Oct. 9
• Early voting: N/A
• Absentee voting deadline: Nov. 6

• Online registration: Yes
• Same-day registration: No
• Voter ID: Photo or non-photo ID required
• Poll times: 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

---

On the ballot: U.S. House • State Senate • State House • Special state legislative • Supreme court • Appellate courts • Local judges • State ballot measures • School boards • Municipal • Democratic primaries • Republican primaries

2020 → ← 2016
Kentucky's 6th Congressional District
Democratic primary Republican primary General election
Election details
Filing deadline: January 30, 2018
Primary: May 22, 2018 General: November 6, 2018 Pre-election incumbent: Andy Barr (Republican) Election winner: Andy Barr (Republican)
How to vote
Poll times: 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. Voting in Kentucky
Race ratings
Cook Partisan Voter Index (2018): R+9 Cook Political Report: Toss-up Inside Elections: Toss-up Sabato's Crystal Ball: Toss-up
Ballotpedia analysis
U.S. Senate battlegrounds U.S. House battlegrounds Federal and state primary competitiveness Ballotpedia's Election Analysis Hub, 2018
See also
Kentucky's 6th Congressional District 1st • 2nd • 3rd • 4th • 5th • 6th Kentucky elections, 2018 U.S. Congress elections, 2018 U.S. Senate elections, 2018 U.S. House elections, 2018 Alabama U.S. House racesAlaska U.S. House racesArizona U.S. House racesArkansas U.S. House racesCalifornia U.S. House racesColorado U.S. House racesConnecticut U.S. House racesDelaware U.S. House racesFlorida U.S. House racesGeorgia U.S. House racesHawaii U.S. House racesIdaho U.S. House racesIllinois U.S. House racesIndiana U.S. House racesIowa U.S. House racesKansas U.S. House racesKentucky U.S. House racesLouisiana U.S. House racesMaine U.S. House racesMaryland U.S. House racesMassachusetts U.S. House racesMichigan U.S. House racesMinnesota U.S. House racesMississippi U.S. House racesMissouri U.S. House racesMontana U.S. House racesNebraska U.S. House racesNevada U.S. House racesNew Hampshire U.S. House racesNew Jersey U.S. House racesNew Mexico U.S. House racesNew York U.S. House racesNorth Carolina U.S. House racesNorth Dakota U.S. House racesOhio U.S. House racesOklahoma U.S. House racesOregon U.S. House racesPennsylvania U.S. House racesRhode Island U.S. House racesSouth Carolina U.S. House racesSouth Dakota U.S. House racesTennessee U.S. House racesTexas U.S. House racesUtah U.S. House racesVermont U.S. House racesVirginia U.S. House racesWashington U.S. House racesWest Virginia U.S. House racesWisconsin U.S. House racesWyoming U.S. House racesSubmit

Three-term incumbent Rep. Andy Barr (R) defeated former Marine Corps pilot Amy McGrath (D) and three other candidates in the general election for Kentucky's 6th Congressional District on November 6, 2018.

All 435 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives were up for election in 2018. The Democratic Party gained a net total of 40 seats, winning control of the chamber. This race was identified as a 2018 battleground that might have affected partisan control of the U.S. House in the 116th Congress. Heading into the election, the Republican Party was in the majority holding 235 seats to Democrats' 193 seats, with seven vacant seats. Democrats needed to win 23 GOP-held seats in 2018 to win control of the House. From 1918 to 2016, the president’s party lost an average of 29 seats in midterm elections.

Although Barr won his re-election campaign in 2016 by more than 20 percentage points, this race was rated a toss-up by three race raters after McGrath won the Democratic primary. Grace Segers of CBS News wrote, "Ultimately, the race will be the test of whether a strong, nationally-admired Democrat is able to win in a deep-red district."

Third-party, independent, and write-in candidates included Frank Harris, James Germalic, and Rikka Wallin.

Kentucky's 6th Congressional District is based in central Kentucky and contains the cities of Lexington (including its suburbs), Richmond, and Frankfort, the state capital. Anderson, Bath, Bourbon, Clark, Estill, Fayette, Fleming, Franklin, Madison, Menifee, Montgomery, Nicholas, Powell, Robertson, Scott, Wolfe, and Woodford counties, as well as portions of Harrison and Jessamine counties, are included in the district.

For more information about the Democratic primary, click here.
For more information about the Republican primary, click here.

Candidates and election results

General election

General election for U.S. House Kentucky District 6

Incumbent Andy Barr defeated Amy McGrath, Frank Harris, Rikka Wallin, and James Germalic in the general election for U.S. House Kentucky District 6 on November 6, 2018.

		Candidate	%	Votes
✔		Andy Barr (R)	51.0	154,468
		Amy McGrath (D)	47.8	144,736
		Frank Harris (L)	0.7	2,150
		Rikka Wallin (Independent)	0.3	1,011
	Submit photo	James Germalic (Independent)	0.2	523

---

	Incumbents are bolded and underlined. The results have been certified. Source	Total votes: 302,888
= candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey.
If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey.
Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team.

Withdrawn or disqualified candidates

• Mikel Bradley (Independent)

Democratic primary election

Democratic primary for U.S. House Kentucky District 6

The following candidates ran in the Democratic primary for U.S. House Kentucky District 6 on May 22, 2018.

		Candidate	%	Votes
✔		Amy McGrath	48.7	48,860
		Jim Gray	40.5	40,684
		Reggie Thomas	7.2	7,226
		Geoff M. Young	1.6	1,574
		Daniel Kemph	1.2	1,240
	Submit photo	Theodore Green	0.8	835

---

	There were no incumbents in this race. The results have been certified.	Total votes: 100,419
= candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey.
If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey.
Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team.

Republican primary election

Republican primary for U.S. House Kentucky District 6

Incumbent Andy Barr defeated Chuck Eddy in the Republican primary for U.S. House Kentucky District 6 on May 22, 2018.

		Candidate	%	Votes
✔		Andy Barr	83.8	40,514
		Chuck Eddy	16.2	7,858

---

	Incumbents are bolded and underlined. The results have been certified.	Total votes: 48,372
= candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey.
If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey.
Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team.

Candidate profiles

See also: Editorial approach to writing about key campaign messages

Amy McGrath, U.S. Marine Corps, retired lieutenant colonel

Party: Democratic

Incumbent: No

Political office: None

Biography: McGrath graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy in 1997. She completed two combat flying tours in Afghanistan and Iraq and became the first woman Marine to fly an F-18 on a combat mission. She served as a Marine Corps congressional fellow in the office of Rep. Susan Davis (D). In 2017, after teaching at the U.S. Naval Academy, she retired from the Marine Corps as a lieutenant colonel.

Key messages

• McGrath emphasized her military background, saying her experience as a Marine combat veteran exemplified her discipline and commitment to public service.

• McGrath said she would not vote the party line and criticized Barr for voting with Republicans 98 percent of the time, according to a CQ vote study.

• McGrath promoted an economic plan for Central Kentucky focused on agriculture, manufacturing, and technology.

Andy Barr, U.S. representative

Party: Republican

Incumbent: Yes

Political office: U.S. House of Representatives, Kentucky's 6th District (assumed office: 2013)

Biography: Barr earned a B.A. from the University of Virginia and a J.D. from the University of Kentucky College of Law. He worked as a legislative assistant to Rep. Jim Talent (R) before becoming an attorney. He served as deputy general counsel for Gov. Ernie Fletcher (R) and taught constitutional law and administrative law at the University of Kentucky and Morehead State University.

Key messages

• Barr emphasized his conservative values, including limited government and reducing regulations.

• Barr, a sixth-generation Lexingtonian, defined his representation of central Kentucky by his accessibility and availability to his constituents.

• Barr characterized McGrath as too liberal for Kentucky. His campaign ads presented her as radical on abortion and climate issues.

Polls

See also: Ballotpedia's approach to covering polls

Kentucky's 6th Congressional District election, 2018
Poll	Poll sponsor	Barr	McGrath	Undecided/Other	Margin of error	Sample size
New York Times/Siena College November 1-4, 2018	N/A	44%	44%	10%	+/-4.9	438
Public Opinion Strategies October 6-8, 2018	Barr/NRCC	48%	46%	6%	+/-4.9	400
Garin-Hart-Yang Research Group September 30-October 2, 2018	McGrath	44%	51%	5%	+/-4.5	501
Pulse Opinion Research September 12-17, 2018	United States Term Limits	47%	47%	5%	+/-4.0	600
New York Times/Siena September 6-8, 2018	N/A	47%	46%	7%	+/-4.9	506
Fabrizio, Lee and Associates September 4-6, 2018	CLF	49%	45%	6%	+/-4.9	400
Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee April 30-May 2, 2018	DCCC	37%	52%	11%	+/-4.4	508
AVERAGES		45.14%	47.29%	7.14%	+/-4.64	479
Note: The polls above may not reflect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those displayed are a random sampling chosen by Ballotpedia staff. If you would like to nominate another poll for inclusion in the table, send an email to editor@ballotpedia.org.

Campaign finance

The chart below contains data from financial reports submitted to the Federal Election Commission.

Name	Party	Receipts*	Disbursements**	Cash on hand	Date
Andy Barr	Republican Party	$5,310,225	$5,652,125	$134,679	As of December 31, 2018
Amy McGrath	Democratic Party	$8,619,206	$8,351,250	$267,956	As of December 31, 2018
Frank Harris	Libertarian Party	$0	$0	$0	Data not available***
James Germalic	Independent	$0	$0	$0	Data not available***
Rikka Wallin	Independent	$0	$0	$0	Data not available***
Source: Federal Elections Commission, "Campaign finance data," 2018. This product uses the openFEC API but is not endorsed or certified by the Federal Election Commission (FEC). * According to the FEC, "Receipts are anything of value (money, goods, services or property) received by a political committee." ** According to the FEC, a disbursement "is a purchase, payment, distribution, loan, advance, deposit or gift of money or anything of value to influence a federal election," plus other kinds of payments not made to influence a federal election. *** Candidate either did not report any receipts or disbursements to the FEC, or Ballotpedia did not find an FEC candidate ID.

Satellite spending

Satellite spending, commonly referred to as outside spending, describes political spending not controlled by candidates or their campaigns; that is, any political expenditures made by groups or individuals that are not directly affiliated with a candidate. This includes spending by political party committees, super PACs, trade associations, and 501(c)(4) nonprofit groups.

This section lists satellite spending in this race reported by news outlets in alphabetical order. If you are aware of spending that should be included, please email us.

• The American Action Network announced a $1 million ad campaign targeting Kentucky's 6th District and 25 other congressional districts in March 2018. The group's 6th District ad asked voters to thank Barr for supporting the tax bill passed by Congress in December 2017.

• The Friend of Racing Super PAC announced that it was spending six figures on an ad campaign in October 2018 backing Barr for his support of the state's $1 billion horse racing industry.

• The National Association of Realtors spent $399,000 on ads to support Barr in September 2018.

• VoteVets.org spent $156,000 on a pro-McGrath ad buy from August 21 to September 3, 2018.

• With Honor Fund made a $483,000 ad buy to support McGrath and oppose Barr in September 2018.

Race ratings

See also: Race rating definitions and methods

Ballotpedia provides race ratings from four outlets: The Cook Political Report, Inside Elections, Sabato's Crystal Ball, and DDHQ/The Hill. Each race rating indicates if one party is perceived to have an advantage in the race and, if so, the degree of advantage:

• Safe and Solid ratings indicate that one party has a clear edge and the race is not competitive.
• Likely ratings indicate that one party has a clear edge, but an upset is possible.
• Lean ratings indicate that one party has a small edge, but the race is competitive.
• Toss-up ratings indicate that neither party has an advantage.

Race ratings are informed by a number of factors, including polling, candidate quality, and election result history in the race's district or state.

Race ratings: Kentucky's 6th Congressional District election, 2018
Race tracker	Race ratings
	October 30, 2018	October 23, 2018	October 16, 2018	October 9, 2018
The Cook Political Report	Toss-up	Toss-up	Toss-up	Toss-up
Inside Elections with Nathan L. Gonzales	Toss-up	Toss-up	Toss-up	Toss-up
Larry J. Sabato's Crystal Ball	Toss-up	Toss-up	Toss-up	Toss-up
Note: Ballotpedia updates external race ratings every two weeks throughout the election season.

District analysis

See also: The Cook Political Report's Partisan Voter Index

See also: FiveThirtyEight's elasticity scores

The 2017 Cook Partisan Voter Index for this district was R+9, meaning that in the previous two presidential elections, this district's results were 9 percentage points more Republican than the national average. This made Kentucky's 6th Congressional District the 147th most Republican nationally.

FiveThirtyEight's September 2018 elasticity score for states and congressional districts measured "how sensitive it is to changes in the national political environment." This district's elasticity score was 0.92. This means that for every 1 point the national political mood moved toward a party, the district was expected to move 0.92 points toward that party.

Noteworthy endorsements

See also: Ballotpedia: Our approach to covering endorsements

This section lists noteworthy endorsements issued in this election, including those made by high-profile individuals and organizations, cross-party endorsements, and endorsements made by newspaper editorial boards. It also includes a bulleted list of links to official lists of endorsements for any candidates who published that information on their campaign websites. Please note that this list is not exhaustive. If you are aware of endorsements that should be included, please click here.

Click the links below to see endorsement lists published on candidate campaign websites, if available:

• Andy Barr

Policy stances

Trade policy

In 2018, President Donald Trump began imposing tariffs on foreign countries, including China and the European Union, leading the countries to impose tariffs on American products in response. The EU and Mexico targeted American whiskey with their tariffs, one of the district's top exports.

Barr said he believed the tariffs were a negotiating tactic by the Trump administration. He said, "It’s kind of one of these things we appreciate because the administration is trying to get reciprocal trade. At the same time, I’ve got to fight for my bourbon industry and I’m doing it.”

McGrath opposed the tariffs. She said, “The tariffs make no sense, that’s the bottom line. The tariffs are evidence of the wider agenda that hurts the average American.”

Medicaid work requirements

Barr and McGrath took different positions when Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin's (R) request that certain adults be required to work to receive Medicaid benefits was granted by the Trump administration.

Barr said, "I have no reaction. It's a state decision and I'm a federal lawmaker. My job, the way I look at it, is to support a Medicaid program that allows every state ... to tailor their Medicaid programs according to the state-based policymakers' decisions."

McGrath said, "Gov. Bevin's obvious goal is to take health care away from Kentuckians. He tried to do it by instituting his unconstitutional work requirements. When that didn't work, he's just going through with taking health care away any way he can."

Coal industry

Barr won his 2012 challenge against U.S. Rep. Ben Chandler (D) on a platform that included decreasing federal regulations on the coal industry. After McGrath won the Democratic primary, he released a statement that said she sought to "re-impose the ruinous regulations that gave us the weakest recovery since the Great Depression."

McGrath said that “[climate change] poses a serious challenge to our national security” and that “[w]e owe it to our fellow Americans to take every measure possible in mitigating the effects of climate change.” She also said that coal “has been played as a political football" in the district and that a candidate did not need to take a yes or no position on it.

Campaign advertisements

Amy McGrath

Support

"Investment" - McGrath campaign ad, released October 26, 2018

"Border" - McGrath campaign ad, released October 2, 2018

"Goalkeeper" - McGrath campaign ad, released September 24, 2018

"Right Here" - McGrath campaign ad, released September 14, 2018

"Home Videos" - McGrath campaign ad, released September 5, 2018

"My Hero" - McGrath campaign ad, released August 30, 2018

"Classroom" - McGrath campaign ad, released August 24, 2018

"Inevitable" - McGrath campaign ad, released August 10, 2018

"Hundreds" - McGrath campaign ad, released August 7, 2018

Oppose

"Hurt Kentucky" - Congressional Leadership Fund opposition ad, released October 31, 2018

"Booming" - Congressional Leadership Fund opposition ad, released October 24, 2018

"Stupid" - Congressional Leadership Fund opposition ad, released October 11, 2018

"Higher Taxes" - Congressional Leadership Fund opposition ad, released October 11, 2018

"Single Payer" - Congressional Leadership Fund opposition ad, released October 3, 2018

"Pelosi Liberal" - Congressional Leadership Fund opposition ad, released September 19, 2018

"Brent" - Congressional Leadership Fund opposition ad, released September 18, 2018

"Own Words" - Barr opposition ad, released September 18, 2018

"Radical Plan" - Barr opposition ad, released September 17, 2018

"Cliff" - Congressional Leadership Fund opposition ad, released August 22, 2018

"Liberal Elite" - Congressional Leadership Fund opposition ad, released August 22, 2018

"Everywhere But Kentucky" - Barr opposition ad, released August 13, 2018

"Hannah" - Congressional Leadership Fund opposition ad, released August 8, 2018

"Safe" - Congressional Leadership Fund opposition ad, released August 8, 2018

Andy Barr

Support

"Friends of Racing TV AD" - Friends of Racing ad, released October 9, 2018

"William Perkins" - Barr campaign ad, released September 17, 2018

"Molly's Story" - Barr campaign ad, released September 10, 2018

"All About Kentucky" - Barr campaign ad, released July 24, 2018

Oppose

"Outrageous" - House Majority PAC opposition ad, released October 16, 2018

"Actions" - DCCC opposition ad, released September 24, 2018

"Payday" - With Honor opposition ad, released September 10, 2018

"Enthusiastic" - VoteVets opposition ad, released August 20, 2018

"Turned His Back on Kentucky" - American Bridge 21st Century opposition ad, released July 19, 2018

"Enabling Ryan" - House Majority PAC opposition ad, released April 20, 2018

Campaign themes

These were the policy positions listed on the candidates' websites.

Amy McGrath

“	Health care I believe strongly that basic health care is a fundamental right that should be guaranteed for every American. Similar to our guarantees of a basic education to every child born, health care is an issue that affects us as a nation, and it's a moral issue for me as a daughter of one of the first women to graduate from the University of Kentucky medical school in the 1960s. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) is far from perfect, but it did enable many Kentuckians, especially those with pre-existing conditions, to acquire affordable health insurance for the first time. As a result, the uninsured rate in Kentucky dropped from over 20% to barely 5%. That’s nowhere near “failing,” as the Republican Party and President Trump continue to claim. But the GOP campaigned on the dishonest notion that the ACA was in a "death spiral" and they had something better and cheaper to “replace” it: Trust them. We all know now, that was a lie. The House bill that my Republican opponent, Andy Barr, said he would “enthusiastically vote for” would have thrown 23 million Americans off health coverage. Overwhelmingly, doctors, nurses, and healthcare organizations in America have opposed each of the Republican bills this year. Their efforts would especially hurt veterans, where 1 in 10 use Medicaid, and mental health conditions like PTSD would be considered a preexisting condition. The American Medical Association not only opposed the GOP efforts, but went so far as to say it violated their medical standard of “do no harm!” Ironically, the “repeal and replace” effort is also terrible for jobs. Under Senator McConnell’s original Senate bill, Kentucky would have experienced a net loss of 231,400 jobs, all of this so that the wealthiest Americans could have another massive tax cut. The GOP has been unapologetically trying to revert back to a time when people would have to mortgage their homes if they got sick. Insurance That said, we have to be honest that the ACA falls short of the change we really need. My mother was a practicing doctor for 40 years and I continually saw her frustration with the power and control of insurance companies, and with rising costs. We can do better in this country. I believe firmly that the goal must be universal coverage for all Americans. But we need an honest and meaningful debate over how to get there. I side firmly with former Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear, the man who implemented the ACA in a manner that made Kentucky the gold standard among states as far as how it’s supposed to work. Beshear said recently, “If we were starting from scratch, I would be for single-payer, too…. But we aren’t starting from scratch. There are too many stakeholders to be able to sweep them away and begin all over again.” In fact, currently proposed single-payer legislation would represent such a sweeping overhaul that it would put our healthcare system into massive upheaval. I do not support such an approach. Perhaps it’s the military officer in me that takes a more pragmatic approach on this issue. Every major piece of legislation in our country has needed fixes along the way: Social Security and Medicare were not created perfect. We have expanded opportunities and overcome challenges in every generation. In each case, Americans didn’t quit because we didn’t have every answer to start with; instead, we redoubled our efforts, worked together, and found ways around problems and obstacles. That is the American way. We don’t simply throw things away that we believe are imperfect. We work over time – in the words of the Constitution itself – to make them “more perfect.” So, I remain committed to working in a bipartisan way to fix the problems with the Affordable Care Act, which brought down Kentucky's uninsured rate in a dramatic way. But any fixes must maintain current essential health benefits without allowing states to waive them, not impose any annual or lifetime coverage caps, and must continue the ACA’s prohibition against insurers charging higher premiums based on factors such as health status or pre-existing conditions. The voters expect us to put aside our partisan differences and work together to address rising premiums and deductibles, while maintaining the current guarantees for pre-existing conditions. This is critical. In the military, we don't care whether you're a Democrat or a Republican when it comes to completing our mission. I will bring that same sense of purpose to Congress, when elected. I favor approaches to bridge some of the single-payer/Obamacare divide, and begin a longer process that may take us in that general direction. Here are some steps we can take: Medicare buy-in I support a Medicare buy-in option for those over the age of 55. This is smart public policy. The health care debate has been especially frightening for middle aged Americans who have not reached Medicare age. Faced with the skyrocketing premiums that the reckless GOP plans would impose, older Americans too often must confront an impossible choice: spending a large chunk of the retirement nest egg to purchase coverage, or go without coverage and pray nothing happens until they reach 65 and can join Medicare. A Medicare buy-in would provide some peace of mind for the more vulnerable Americans who have some of the greatest, and most expensive, health care needs. And taking some middle aged Americans out of the risk pool would help greatly lower premiums for those under 55. Public option Meanwhile, with some people still unable to afford coverage, and many more paying too much for the coverage they do have, I believe we must increase competition among existing carriers. That’s why I also support a so-called “public option” to create a government-run health insurance agency that would compete with other private health insurance companies within the country. A major reason for a public option — beyond the effect of generally lowering premiums since government would not be trying to make a profit — would be to guarantee that in those counties with just one or two insurers, rates could not be artificially spiked because of lack of competition. Plus, this gives people more choice in the health insurance market. No one would be forced to go with the government-run plan, but it would be there if Americans wished to choose it. It is worth remembering that both the public option and the Medicare buy-in were initially part of the Affordable Care Act, but were removed because of the threat of a filibuster. To improve Obamacare, we need to return to this original conception. Foreign policy “The most essential quality for leadership is not perfection, but credibility. People must be able to believe you.” As a former military officer, protecting America was the business I lived in my entire adult life. Today, we face many global challenges that require us to have leaders who clearly understand the nature of our changing world. American values Our foreign policy must be directly linked to our interests, which are defined by our American values. Our role in the world is unique and we must strive to be the champion of democratic movements, human rights (including women’s rights), justice, equality, opportunity, and freedoms of speech, religion and press. I fear our current President does not respect the values that tie us to our closest allies and partners and the significance of America being the “shining city on a hill.” After fighting for my country and representing America around the globe, I do understand this significance and I will constantly push to bring our American values back into our foreign policy. Changing global environment We must have leaders who understand how the world environment is changing and how it will affect our security. Economic power is shifting from West to the East. Nations in the East like China, will have more money for its military and more power. World population demographics are rapidly changing. Western nations are becoming older. A youth bulge in developing nations, along with rapid urbanization in many parts of the globe, will create many ungoverned spaces that become the breeding ground for jihadist radicalism and crime and will be the platforms for future attacks on the United States. Non-state actors will use the rise of technology to proliferate their ideology and to physically attack our networks. Furthermore, non-state actors could potentially attack our allies, and us, using new weapons we are only imagining today. We need to maintain a strong military and a strong diplomatic and development corps. Climate change is a national security issue. Climate change and resource scarcity is with us today. It’s not a theory, it’s a fact. For some reason, my opponent, and the Republican Party in general, have concluded this might be just a Chinese hoax. It’s not. Scientists around the world know it, and the United States military recognizes what science says and it is already testing, adapting, researching how to operate and succeed in these rapidly changing environments. We are seeing the effects of it now: The Earth is getting warmer. Last summer was the hottest in history and 8 of the last 10 summers were the hottest in history. Sea levels are rising. This will not only affect massive numbers of people who live on the world’s coastlines, but this will affect our national security potentially more than any other factor. Our naval bases around the globe are seeing the effects now. Ten times a year, floods cripple our Norfolk Naval Base. Key West Naval Air Station (where I learned to dogfight in the F/A-18) will be almost completely under water in the next 70 years. Weather patterns are changing. We are seeing hurricanes, floods, and fires in ways we’ve never seen before. Large parts of the world (Middle East, Africa, Southeast Asia) are seeing dramatic desertification at an alarming rate. This means less food will be produced and large movements (migrations) of people will be forced out of the lands they occupy today. In the 20th century, we fought wars over values or economic clashes. In the 21st century, it will be over water and resources. This is the world we will live in. This is the world our children and grandchildren will face. We can’t afford to be isolationist. We can’t afford to look other way, and we can’t afford to keep denying this challenge exists. This is the world's future and we have to adapt! We must lead the world in planning for the effects of climate change and working hard to mitigate them. This should not be a political issue. This is an American issue and a global issue. We need leaders that get it. NATO “NATO isn’t the partner of last resort…it’s the partner of first resort.” The world has seen many failed alliances (League of Nations, Warsaw Pact) – but NATO isn’t one of them… yet. I’ve worked with these nations during my deployments. NATO has only invoked Article 5 once and that was when the alliance stood with us after the attacks of September 11, 2001. They were all right there with us, in tents in Afghanistan, and we need to be there for them. We live in an interconnected world, where a fruit vendor in Tunisia can start an uprising in an entire region! We need strong alliances to face the global challenges ahead, and NATO is the most capable alliance in world history. It’s critical because it’s values-based. Freedom, democracy, rule of law, and liberty are pillars of the organization. NATO isn’t a business deal. It’s not about shared business interests, profit, and power. It’s about shared VALUES, and that’s what makes it so strong and powerful. ISIL/ISIS and radical jihadist extremism The growing threat of Salafi jihadist extremism is the fight I lived in for over a decade. Guns and bombs alone will not win this struggle. “Killing more terrorists” will not win this struggle. Inciting hate will not win this struggle. We have to be strategic. We cannot defeat ISIS and Islamic extremism until we defeat the idea of ISIS. Though we will not lose tactically on the battlefield, we must improve in our strategic communications. This will be a long-term fight, and one where we must be patient. We cannot give them propaganda like President Trump’s Muslim Ban, which is fueling the jihadists’ rhetoric of the United States waging war on Islam. Every time US leadership makes strategic errors like this, ISIS gains more recruits for its cause, crushing our hard fought tactical gains on the battlefield. Ultimately, ISIS and the jihadist groups are a symptom of something larger: the deterioration of the human condition in many parts of the world today. The only way to realistically counteract ISIS, and jihadist groups, is a combination of force and helping areas that are the breeding ground for jihadism. Helping means pressing states and leaders to develop the institutions and mechanisms that develop good governance, electoral legitimacy, and anything that broadens who is allowed political power and voice. Furthermore, we must push for sustainable political solutions in places like Syria and Iraq. The full, and even greater funding of the US State Department, USAID, and development non-governmental organizations (NGO), is as important to our national security than simply a strong military. These agencies of our government must be equipped to partner with local actors to turn populations against extremism and build stronger deradicalization programs. That's the only thing that will turn the tide against jihadist groups. It will not happen with force alone, and it will not work simply by throwing money at local populations. We have to build the local capacity strategically, and this is something that USAID and State know how to do. My opponent, who is on the House Financial Services Committee, voted to withhold funding for important institutions such as the World Bank that help development in Middle East countries. Actions like this show that many in Congress do not understand the strategic nature of the fight we are engaged in. Wars are expensive. Combating terrorism from failed states is expensive. Foreign development aid is the “cheapest insurance policy” we can buy as a country. I’m in full agreement with Secretary of Defense (and former General) James Mattis when he says, if we cut foreign aid, then we need to “buy more ammunition.” (Read my published thoughts on preventative war and the Iraq invasion of 2003: [1]) Afghanistan Despite what the current President has promised, we will never achieve any lasting success in Afghanistan unless we can help make Afghanistan’s government function better. Afghanistan will not be turned into a Jeffersonian democracy, but we can define success by simultaneously protecting the American homeland and expanding the Afghan government’s capacity. We can do that with a small presence in Afghanistan for a few continued years. However, we need leaders with a robust understanding of this conflict who will push the Administration to utilize other government agencies, not just military. If there is one takeaway I’ve gained after fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq in multiple combat deployments, it’s this: the military cannot “win” this alone. It’s going to require various elements of national power, some of which have been vastly underfunded in recent years (diplomacy, development agencies) by members in Congress who haven’t a clue about the nature of the threats we face today. Iran Iran and its Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps continue to be the largest destabilizing influence in Middle East today. Additionally, Iran was on its way to developing a nuclear weapon over the past decade and a half before the last administration’s attempts to halt Iran’s progress. There are lots of opinions on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the so-called “Iran deal”. After completing the 3-year Program for Emerging Leaders at the Center for the Study of Weapons of Mass Destruction (National Defense University) and teaching a course on WMD at the US Naval Academy, I’ve studied the deal quite a bit. The US along with the rest of the world (specifically the UK, France, China, Russia, and Germany) successfully negotiated with Iran to constrain its growing nuclear program. Recently, our Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Dunford, said Iran is in compliance with its obligations under the deal, and Secretary of Defense Mattis has indicated that pulling out of the deal would not be in our interests. I am in full agreement with both. The deal sharply constrains Iran’s nuclear program and provides for strict inspections that the international community has never been granted before. The best way to ensure a nation does not have nuclear weapon capability is through inspections. If the “Iran deal” goes away, the inspections will go away and we will have no way of knowing the extent of Iran’s nuclear capability. Additionally, the rest of the world will not reinstate sanctions if the US unilaterally pulls out. Pulling out would be a loss for us on all fronts. Iran would get its economy back and be able to develop a nuclear weapon, while we would lose all of our credibility in seeking a diplomatic resolution to other conflicts such as the current North Korea nuclear crisis. Bottom line: Diplomacy avoided another war in the Middle East and averted the kind of crisis we now face with North Korea. It’s working. Let’s not throw it away. Israel After having operated in the Middle East for many years as a US Marine, I’ve grown to appreciate the unique security requirements of our closest ally in the region, Israel. I had the opportunity to spend the summer of 2015 in Israel leading a group of American cadets and midshipmen traveling with the IDF (Israeli Defense Force) to gain a further understanding of the region. The survival and security of Israel is in the United States’ interest and a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is fundamental to Israel’s security. Additionally, I’m in full support of maintaining Israel’s QME (Qualitative Military Edge) and strengthening our nation’s special relationship based on shared values. North Korea Kim Jong-un has promised to build an ICBM with nuclear warhead capability to hit the US. Everyday we see him getting closer and closer to fulfilling that promise. It has been like this since President George W. Bush. So, how do we handle it? Carefully, deliberately, and with all elements of national power. We know Kim Jong-un is a cruel leader, but there is no evidence that he is suicidal, or cannot be deterred. His quest for nuclear weapons is spurred by one thing, the survival of his regime. We must recognize that North Korea has possessed formidable conventional, chemical, and biological capabilities for decades without using them. Kim knows that any large conflict would wipe his regime out, making it highly unlikely that he would start one. We shouldn’t either. A preventative war would be a disaster given the millions of innocent people (including thousands of Americans) who would be killed in South Korea and Japan. We need to be very deliberate and careful when dealing with this nuclear regime. Our President prides himself on his unpredictability in foreign policy. Unpredictability between nuclear weapon capable states is extremely destabilizing. The President’s rhetoric and tweets are immensely dangerous to the well being of our people and our country. The US has other options between doing nothing and all out war. We could use our offensive cyber capabilities to degrade North Korea’s nuclear arsenal, increase our missile defense capabilities in the region, or even coordinate a naval blockade to put an even tougher economic squeeze on the regime. No matter what we do, we should do it with the cooperation of our partners and allies as well as with the cooperation of China and Russia. China certainly does not wish to see a war on the Korean peninsula either. It is critical that the approach to North Korean nuclear progress should be a rest of the world vs. North Korea, not just a US vs. North Korea. World sanctions against Iran worked because they were not unilateral. We need the same multi-national approach here. Russia Our Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has testified that Russia is the greatest threat to American security. Russia poses an existential threat to the United States due to its nuclear weapons and its behavior in the past several years has been disturbing. Russia’s aggression in Georgia, Crimea, Ukraine, and Syria has been alarming. It’s becoming more assertive in the Arctic, likely the most important geostrategic zone of competition in the coming decades. The US should consider providing defensive arms to Ukraine and exerting more pressure on Moscow using economic sanctions. Additionally, we know that Russia tried to undermine one of our greatest treasures, that of our democratic process itself. Right now, we need a 9/11-style commission to find out and address the extent of Russian involvement in the 2016 elections. This was an attack within our borders on the very linchpin of our democratic stability, and Russia will try it again. We need to know what happened, how and why it happened, and call it out with a response. As an American, I’m extremely disappointed the Republican majority in Congress has failed to address this national security threat. Remember, we had 33 Congressional hearings exhausting all aspects of the Benghazi disaster in Libya. Where is the same emphasis to investigate this attack and our failure as a nation at defending against it? Our current administration is failing to take this threat seriously (for obvious reasons). It's Congress’ job to stand up, take action here when the President is unwilling to protect our American democratic elections. China China has been rapidly expanding its military. It has been adding to its Navy by 15 percent each year and expanding into the deep Pacific. It has aggressively built bases on islands and claimed parts of the South China Sea against international law in its quest for more natural resources. Here again, its critical that the US work with our allies and partners in the region to counter China’s advances and ensure the region remains democratically and human rights oriented. At the same time, the US has a special interrelated economic relationship with China. We also need to work with China to stem North Korea’s nuclear weapon progress. When the current administration pulled out of the strategic partnership of the TPP, the US lost influence in the Pacific. If the United States is pushed out of Asia (which is what China would want), we would lose our influence in that crucial part of the world. China would gain more power, trade will be harder, we might not be in a position to respond should a major development occur. Sexual harassment Let’s talk about sexual harassment. It's such an important, and long overdue conversation for us to have as a nation. First, we cannot let it become a partisan issue. Otherwise, it will become a political football and never be dealt with by our society, and we lose a crucial opportunity for meaningful reckoning, healing, and education. This affliction doesn’t fall along partisan lines — Roy Moore, John Conyers, Harvey Weinstein, Charlie Rose, Al Franken, Donald Trump, and the list goes on. All inappropriate physical harassment perpetrated by those in power upon women (or men) is wrong and cannot be tolerated, and predatory behavior towards children/teenagers, as is alleged in Alabama regarding Roy Moore, should be treated for what it is — outright child molestation. This cultural shift may well represent a watershed moment. It is likely that more women will speak out against prominent political and establishment figures, and they should. We've come to learn that predatory behavior doesn’t typically happen just once. When the first courageous person decides to speak out, we have to expect that more will follow and what we have been ignoring in our workplaces and professions for some time will begin to surface. We have to resist the natural impulse to give the benefit of the doubt for those we tend to like, but not those on the other side. Bad behavior by Democrats should not be viewed as less detrimental to us than by those we disagree with politically. We had (and continue to have) this problem in our military. I lived through times in my career where the culture was such that speaking out was certainly not in the best interest of one's career. Be silent, look the other way, don't cause waves, brush it off...these were all coping mechanisms for many women in the military. But the military has made strides in this area and I could see a real positive difference during my 24-year career. In my experience, the very best way to combat this type of behavior is for leaders to foster an environment of respect for all, and one where anyone can feel like he/she can come forward (without repercussion) should there be sexual harassment or assault. That means leaders must make known their expectations that the behavior will never be tolerated nor covered up, and of course follow through with it (even when the perpetrator is someone high ranking or well known to the leader). Also, it was only when women began to rise in the officer and enlisted ranks that the systemic harassment and hazing began to subside in the units that had women. When the military ranks were largely an all-boys club, this behavior went largely unchecked. It was the promotion of more senior women officers and senior enlisted that made a difference. That's an incredibly important lesson. When we see more women in places like corporate board rooms and elected to office, it will be harder to get away with abusive behavior. Finally, we have to look out for each other, regardless of gender. Each of us (men and women) can make a real difference when we stand up, say something, and refuse to look the other way. Often, it takes only one person to intervene. When the perpetrator is the person in power, we have to foster a society where people can come forward and hold their leaders publicly accountable too. That’s what we all need to do here. Medical marijuana & legalization Many veterans suffering from chronic pain and PTSD report improved healthcare outcomes from medical cannabis and I’m proud to stand with the American Legion in calling for the removal of cannabis as a Schedule 1 drug. I also strongly believe that we need more research into its efficacy in treating these ailments that veterans, and others, face. It may also alleviate some of the dependence on opioids for pain relief and that, alone, is a meaningful reason to consider moving in that direction. On the issue of full legalization, I’d like to see our government permit full research on the subject. The Schedule 1 classification means that we can’t even conduct studies on the effect of legalization. Perhaps it’s the military officer in me, but I’m all about thoughtful planning and research before diving head first into fully opening that door. But I hope the state — and the federal government — begin to relax its unnecessarily rigid position on medical cannabis. Guns [Updated on February 19, 2018] Over the past few months, I've been asked a few times about whether I would ever seek the NRA's endorsement or accept campaign contributions from them? The answer is No. Arguably, the greatest barrier to making progress on so many issues comes down to the power of the special interests, and the greater opportunity for making money, the greater the influence of their campaign money on our elected officials. Think about what the oil and gas industry has done to efforts to tackle climate change, or the power of Big Pharma on drug prices. The gun lobby (primarily the NRA) is arguably the most powerful of all special interests. In the early 2000s, I was actually an NRA member for a period of time. Back then, the NRA was about gun owners. Today, it has morphed into a lobbying group for commercial gun manufacturers. I don't recognize the current version of the group. The gun lobby's mere ability to stifle any reasonable efforts towards tackling the epidemic of gun violence is the greatest obstacle we face in dealing with gun safety and strong policing of existing laws. When it is able to maintain a 22-year federal ban on agencies like the CDC using funds to study the problem from a public health standpoint, it is preventing us from even having an informed starting point for discussions, and last year's sabotaging of bipartisan legislation to improve the gun-sale background check system — right after two horrific mass shootings (Las Vegas and the Texas church massacre) — should remind us that this is as much Congress' fault as it is the deranged mass killers who use the weapons. For example, federal law requires you to be 21 to purchase a handgun, but in many states anyone 18 or older can buy the AR-15, a semi-automatic version of the military’s M16, on which I was trained. That means a 19-year-old can’t buy a beer and can’t buy a handgun, but can buy an assault weapon. As a nation, we desperately need to have a conversation about guns where we bring to the table the concerns of both those in the cities as well as the rural areas. Beyond the common sense measures that should have been enacted long ago that even gun owners support (background checks for private sales and gun shows, barring purchases from anyone on no-fly or watch lists, meaningful efforts to keep guns out of the hands of felons, domestic abusers, and the mentally ill, and funding our CDC and NIH to study the epidemic as it does every other scourge), we need a honest conversation about what are willing to tolerate as a nation. When do we discuss who should have access to what are essentially weapons of war (like the AR-15)? Or high-capacity magazines? What about the value of a federal database of gun sales, or a broader discussion about concealed carry? Or an analysis of the benefits and costs to mandatory liability insurance, like we do most other things that we own that can injure others? We need to have an adult conversation as a nation, and we must have input from people with different points of view — without the gun lobby dictating the terms. But it's time for all of us to come to the table and talk it through. We simply can't do that as long as the gun lobby continues to buy off politicians. We also need members of Congress who have some credibility from both sides of this debate, haven't sold their political soul to the special interests in advance, and who respect rural culture and its unique relationship on this issue. [Posted on October 6, 2017] I fear that if a mass gun killing of school kids at Sandy Hook Elementary won’t spark an honest national dialogue about guns, then I don't know what will. As a gun owner, I very much respect the constitutional issues at stake. They're important. But as a mother of three young children, I am terrified by our unwillingness to deal with gun violence, both the mass shootings and the thousands killed by handguns in our cities each year. I'm not going to suggest there are easy fixes to these protracted issues. Even if you stopped mass shootings, what about all the handgun violence? Lawful gun owners shouldn't be penalized for the actions of bad or ill people. But this is an American problem, not that of a single political party, and it requires us to sit down together to find solutions where everyone must give a little from their preferred position. Otherwise, we let the fringes dictate the terms of this debate, and everyone loses — except them. We should begin with the items that have overwhelming public support: tighten enforcement when it comes to preventing the mentally ill from purchasing any weapons, bar purchases by people on no-fly or terror watch lists, and if you have to undergo a background check at a licensed gun dealer (as I have), you should not be able to evade that by obtaining a weapon at gun shows or privately. Otherwise, background checks are worthless. I also support current efforts to restrict alterations on firearms to get around federal restrictions, like bump stock. Beyond those initial measures, we need our leaders to show allegiance to the voters, not to special interests, and sit down and work together on long-term solutions. This is not going to be solved overnight. Money in politics America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves. -Abraham Lincoln The corrosive influence of big money is slowly destroying the democracy our Founders intended. Big money drives lawmakers to cower to special interests, and mutes the conversations needed for public good. Citizens United was one of the worst Supreme Court decisions in modern history. The Court’s decision allows a tidal wave of unlimited and undisclosed donations by corporations under the guise of “free speech.” The Court wrongly believed that a company’s million-dollar campaign donation would not dictate the policy decisions of elected officials. This terrible decision effectively allows an election to be bought. How? By corporations, wealthy individuals, and foreign entities like Russia sinking millions of dollars in the form of countless ads promoting or attacking a candidate to sway voters. The donors lack of “connection” to a campaign allows them to dodge taking responsibility for their “free speech” even if that speech is 100% lies. All the while, American voters may never find out that their election had been heavily influenced by a corporate or foreign agenda. Damage to democracy Just half of one percent — 0.50% — of Americans fund almost 70% of congressional campaigns. Think about that for a second. That’s staggering. The question is, what does this do to our democracy? I see three major effects. First, large undisclosed, unlimited corporate donations directly undermine the wants and needs of the people. Because of these donations, special interests groups have an enormous influence over politicians at the expense of real people. This means higher prescription drugs, lower wages, weak consumer protection - the list goes on and on. Second, big money forces members of Congress to constantly raise more money for their next campaign. They spend 70% of their time fundraising. The person you elected to represent you, to understand the issues, to meet with you, to attend hearings in overseeing the executive branch (as per the Constitution of the US), and the person who is paid $174,000 to do so, is only spending 30% of his or her working time actually working for you! Third, elected offices are held mostly by those who cave to special interests or are millionaires themselves. The cost of political campaigns has skyrocketed in the past two decades. In 2000, the average House campaign cost just under $700,000. In 2016, it was $1.5 million. This makes running for office almost completely out of reach for anyone who is not a millionaire, does not come from a family of politics, and/or is not bought by special interests. My race I see this in my own race for Kentucky’s 6th district. The incumbent Republican congressman gets 97% of his campaign money from special interests, corporations, and large donors, including a staggering $796,171 from the Financial, Insurance, and Real Estate industries in the 2016 cycle alone — three of the largest interest groups. Only 3% of his donations, since he was elected to Congress in 2012, have come from individual donors who gave less than $200. Meanwhile, one of my main Democratic primary challengers is a multi-millionaire who can simply write a personal check to cover his campaign expenses, as he has in his past campaigns. Both are establishment politicians who don’t need or seek small donations in significant numbers. In other words, neither need regular people to fund their campaigns. In contrast, after just 5 months in the race, my campaign had 16,000 donors, of which nearly 13,000 gave $50 or less, and half of the overall money we have raised have come from small donors. That’s democracy speaking. We need to get back to that. Curing the corrosive effects of money Now, how can we cure this cancer crippling our democracy? 1. We must hold our elected officials accountable for succumbing to these special interest groups. It is their responsibility to act in the interest of their constituents not corporations. 2. Elect leaders who believe money in politics to be a major issue, and elect leaders who campaign with the help of the people, not corporate interests. 3. A Constitutional amendment to reign in money in politics, even though such an amendment is unlikely today. As a member of Congress, I will work to pass campaign finance reform every chance I can. But passing any law at the federal level will be challenged in court and that means Citizens United must be overturned. To do that requires a Supreme Court that is more progressive. This is one of the major reasons why who we elect as President is critical. 4. Until we can overturn the harmful Citizens United ruling, we must express support for legislation that piece-by-piece dismantles the some of the ramifications of the ruling. Specifically, here are several items moving through the House of Representatives that are working today to remove big money from politics. I pledge to support them if I am elected to Congress: DISCLOSE Act (H.R. 1134): The DISCLOSE Act would require “dark money” groups, such as 501(c)(4) social welfare organizations and 501 (c)(6) organizations to disclose their donors and spending when they engage in any political activity that mentions a candidate for federal office and/or is intended to influence a federal election. KOCH Act (H.R.1439): The Keeping Our Campaigns Honest (KOCH) Act would require the FCC to demand that outside political groups (dark money organizations) disclose the names of their major donors funding political ads. Government By The People Act (H.R. 20): The Government By The People Act would grant voters a voucher worth up to $50 (through a tax credit) for campaign contributions, and it would provide a six-to-one federal match. This would incentivize candidates to seek widespread small-dollar funding for their campaigns. Get Foreign Money Out of US Elections Act (H.R. 1615): The Get Foreign Money Out of US Elections Act would expand the current ban on campaign contributions and independent expenditures by foreign nationals to include foreign-owned and controlled domestic corporations. In the meantime, I will continue to do everything I can to heighten awareness of this issue and increase awareness on laws that counter the excessive money in our political campaigns. This is a solvable problem, and is not a partisan issue. Fixing it will require citizens and politicians alike who love our country and demand structural reform before our democracy is destroyed. Climate change Climate change isn’t a theory. It’s a fact. And it’s not just scientists around the world who know it. The United States military recognizes it – and realizes that it poses a serious challenge to our national security. That’s why our military is already testing, researching, and adapting operations to succeed in these rapidly changing environments. A changing climate has had and will continue to have hugely disruptive effects not only on the environment, but also on migration patterns, economies, disease vectors, and political unrest around the world. All of these dramatically affect our country’s safety, security and well-being. We are already experiencing these effects: The Earth is getting warmer. Eight of the last ten summers have each been the hottest in history, and last summer was the hottest ever recorded. Sea levels are rising. This will affect massive numbers of people who live on the world’s coastlines, creating climate refugees, economic challenges, epidemics and pandemics, and geopolitical upheavals on a scale never before seen. Climate change is coming and we can’t afford to look the other way. Our naval bases around the globe are seeing the consequences now. Ten times a year, floods cripple our Norfolk Naval Base. Key West Naval Air Station – where I learned to air-to-air dogfight in the F/A-18 – will be almost completely under water in the next 70 years. Weather patterns are creating hurricanes, floods, and fires in ways we’ve never seen before and that will both affect and in some cases demand military responses. Large parts of the world, including the Middle East, Africa, and Southeast Asia, are undergoing dramatic desertification at an alarming rate, meaning less food will be produced and large migrations will occur as people will be forced out of the lands they occupy today. In the 20th century, we fought wars over values or economic conflicts; in the 21st century, it will be over food, water and resources. Another reason climate change is a national security concern is its huge impact on our economy. Rising sea levels will alter global shipping patterns, severe weather will affect the ability of goods to be produced and transported, and markets, particularly for energy, are shifting as nations work to address and mitigate these changes. All of this is why the Trump Administration’s decision to slash research on sustainable, clean sources of energy is so wrong-headed and concerns me – and should concern every patriotic American. Both from a security and an economic standpoint, we need to invest in renewable energy. Our military is already one of the biggest proponents of renewable energy research. Why? Because it saves lives – and makes more strategic sense – if forward operating bases overseas do not have to be constantly refueled with traditional forms of energy like petroleum, which require vulnerable ground supply lines and are subject to potentially volatile markets. Both militarily and economically, the US must be a world leader in renewables investment or we will cede the future energy industry – and our national security – to China, which is developing in this area at a rapid pace. America should be leading the world in responding to climate change, not running away. The Paris Climate Accords is a global agreement to recognize climate change and pursue a call to action to mitigate its detrimental effects. When President Trump pulled out of the agreement, he not only made an irresponsible move given the trajectory of the global climate, but also severely lessened our power in world leadership. He signified a lack of responsibility and seriousness in protecting our world. Simply put, “America first” doesn’t work regarding climate change because we don’t live in a bubble. By removing ourselves from the Paris Agreement, we not only turn our back on the rest of the world, but we are turning our back on our own people. We owe it to our fellow Americans to take every measure possible in mitigating the effects of climate change. But renewable energy research isn’t just something we need to do to respond to a threat – whether security, economic, or environmental – it’s something we should invest in as an opportunity. Renewable energy is both cleaner and more economical in the long-run, and that’s why it has tremendous potential for economic growth and job opportunities across America. This is especially true for Kentucky. As I discuss in detail in my forthcoming economic plan, Kentucky’s energy future need not be an either/or choice between coal and sustainable sources. We can provide support for our coal communities and boost coal consumption here in Kentucky by using local coal-generated electricity for electric vehicles while we work to transition the energy infrastructure and expertise that we already have to renewables like wind and solar. Furthermore, renewable energy represents an opportunity not a threat for our state: Kentucky can become a leader in expanding solar and wind production, which will both reduce electricity costs for our families and bring energy-related jobs back to Central Kentucky. We can achieve this in part by leveraging our military bases as national hubs for renewables research, and expanding – not cutting – federal investment in this research. Because of our location, Central Kentucky can also continue to be a leader in the budding logistics industry by investing in needed electric-vehicle infrastructure, which will itself help produce additional jobs in vehicle manufacturing and energy provision. Such strategies will help contribute to the mitigation of climate change – but they, just as importantly, will help grow our economy and create jobs: not jobs somewhere far away, jobs right here in Kentucky. In sum, we have the tools right here in Central Kentucky to be leaders not only in the coal economy of the 20th Century, but also in the renewable energy economy of the 21st Century. Renewables research is an opportunity for Kentucky, and we need someone to go to Washington and fight so that when the future economy comes, our district will be its home, just as it was for the energy economy of the past. The environment shouldn’t be a partisan, political issue. This is a global issue, an American issue, and an issue for Kentucky. It’s about the future of our planet for our children and generations to come. We need leaders that get it.	”
—Amy McGrath for Congress

Andy Barr

“	National Security As Chairman of the subcommittee with jurisdiction over the Treasury Department’s implementation of sanctions, Andy introduced a bill that imposes the toughest economic sanctions ever directed at North Korea. The legislation, which passed the House 415-2, was named in honor of Otto Warmbier, an American student who died after being returned to the United States in a coma following his kidnapping, detention and torture for more than a year by the Kim regime. Andy voted for vital funding to rebuild our nation’s military, increase readiness, bolster our Naval forces, increase end strength of our Armed Forces and provide the largest pay raise for our troops in a decade. Andy has led efforts to recapitalize and secure 16 new C-130 J model aircraft for the Air National Guard and is currently working with leadership of the U.S. Air Force and National Guard Bureau to secure a squadron of new J model aircraft for Kentucky’s Air National Guard. As a member of the National Guard Caucus, Andy was awarded the 2017 Charles Dick Medal of Merit from the National Guard Association of the United States for distinguished service in providing “exceptionally strong support” to the National Guard. Opioid Epidemic Andy created the Sixth District Drug Abuse Task Force made up of professionals in prevention, education, law enforcement, treatment and recovery to tear down barriers in communication and make recommendations to facilitate action. Andy voted for the largest investment to date, the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act, which is comprised of 58 individual opioid bills to improve prevention, treatment, and recovery initiatives to fight the opioid epidemic throughout our communities. This package of bills passed the House on June 22, 2018. Andy introduced the Transitional Housing for Recovery in Viable Environments (THRIVE) Act, which allocates a limited number of Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers for transitional housing non-profits, similar to many successful models in the Sixth District. These vouchers would be used to help individuals in recovery maintain sobriety, rise above government dependency, and gain valuable life and employment skills. This legislation was included in the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act. Andy supported a $4 billion investment in funding for opioid treatment and prevention included in the FY18 Consolidated Appropriations Act. Andy helped pass the 21st Century Cures Act, which funds new research and treatment for opioid addiction. Andy introduced and passed an amendment to enhance resources for the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area Program, bringing total funding to $280 million and helping a number of Sixth District counties fight drug trafficking. Andy helped secure a $2.6 million grant for Chrysalis House in Lexington to provide treatment and recovery services to pregnant and postpartum women and their children struggling with addiction. Andy helped secure a $4.9 million federal grant for the University of Kentucky’s PATHways/Beyond Birth Team which serves pregnant women battling addiction in rural areas. Andy voted for the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act, which included his amendment recommended by the University of Kentucky to commission a federal study on the treatment options and outcomes for Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome suffered by infants born to mothers who take opioids during pregnancy. Financial Services As the chairman of the Subcommittee on Monetary Policy and Trade, Andy is charged with oversight of the Federal Reserve, international financial institutions, exchange rates, and economic sanctions. Andy supported the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act, which is the most financial regulatory relief package in a generation. The legislation included two bills introduced by Andy: The Portfolio Lending and Mortgage Access Act, which extends the “qualified mortgage” legal safe harbor to small creditors, banks and credit unions, with total assets of $10 billion or less who originate and hold residential mortgage loans in portfolio, rather than selling or securitizing them, allowing those lenders to satisfy Dodd-Frank’s ability-to-repay rule. The Preserving Access to Manufactured Housing Act, which clarifies the definitions of “high-cost” loans so that manufactures homes no longer fall under this designation that is harming access to affordable manufactured housing, allowing more Americans to own their home rather than rent. Andy supported and helped pass the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act, which is a comprehensive reform to the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) and the export control regime. This legislation closes loopholes and prevents adversaires, like China, from obtaining access to critical technology and infrastructure. Economy & Jobs Andy voted for the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the first comprehensive reform of the tax code in over 30 years. This legislation: Cuts taxes by $2,052 for the average median income family in the Sixth District Doubles the standard deduction and child tax credit Includes legislation Andy introduced to boost Kentucky’s horse and bourbon industries Led to increased bonuses, wages and enhanced benefits for over four million workers nationwide Lowered utility rates for families throughout Kentucky As a member of the Financial Services Committee, Andy is a national leader in the effort to roll back burdensome regulations, authoring multiple bills that will increase Americans’ access to the financial system so that entrepreneurs, farmers and homeowners can access the capital they need to build businesses, create jobs and purchase a home. As the Chairman of the subcommittee that oversees the Federal Reserve System, Andy is the top policymaker in Congress advocating for more conventional, predictable, and accountable monetary policy. Energy Member of the Congressional Coal Caucus Member of the Congressional Recycling Caucus Member of the Congressional Natural Gas Caucus Member of the Congressional Decentralized Wastewater Recycling Caucus Andy cosponsored a resolution expressing the sense of Congress that a carbon tax would be detrimental to the United States economy. Andy cosponsored H.J.Res 38 which disapproves the Stream Protection Rule submitted by the Department of Interior. This legislation relieves regulations imposed by this rule and addresses the impacts of surface coal mining operations on surface water and the productivity of mining operation sites. H.J. Res 38 was signed into law by President Trump on February 16, 2017. Andy cosponsored the Renewable Fuel Standard Elimination Act, which repeals the Environmental Protection Agency’s renewable fuel program. This program requires transportation fuel to contain a minimum volume of renewable fuel. Andy cosponsored the Miners Protection Act, which amends the the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 to transfer certain funds to the Multi-Employers Health Benefits Plan and the 1974 United Mine Workers of American Plan to provide health and pension benefits to retired coal miners and their families. Andy cosponsored the New Source Review Permitting Improvement Act, which provides certainty in planning for upgrades and would create less costly and time-consuming modernizations for factories, power plants, refineries, and other facilities. Healthcare After nearly seven years of hearing constituents’ struggle with the one-size-fits all health care law that is now collapsing under its own weight, Andy supported the American Health Care Act to increase competition and choice, lower costs, and deliver relief to families throughout Kentucky. The American Health Care Act, which represented the largest entitlement reform in history, would have created a personalized, patient-centered health care system to encourage the health insurance marketplace to compete, ensure individuals with pre-existing conditions have access to affordable, quality health care and allow families to pick the plan that best fits their needs. Andy supported repealing the individual mandate for health insurance, which penalized Americans for not choosing to purchase health insurance they did not want or was too expensive to maintain. Andy supported the Small Business Fairness Act to allow small businesses to bind together to offer high quality, lower cost health insurance plans to their employees, relieving them from the costly state-mandated laws that make health care coverage exorbitantly expensive. Andy cosponsored the Childhood Cancer STAR Act, which advances pediatric cancer research and child-focused cancer treatments. This legislation was signed into law by President Trump on May 29, 2018. Andy led a Kentucky Congressional delegation letter in support of the University of Kentucky’s Markey Cancer Center’s application to renew its National Cancer Institute (NCI) designation. The University of Kentucky received its renewal NCI designation in August 2018. Andy voted for the 21st Century Cures Act, which authorizes state block grants to improve the treatment of disease, mental health and addiction. Andy voted for a $4 billion appropriation – the largest to date – to combat the opioid crisis and address prevention, treatment and enforcement After hosting the Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development in the Sixth District to meet with local recovery organizations, Andy introduced a bill to provide more resources for transitional housing for opioid addiction recovery. Andy has continued to support Community Health Centers and their work to provide accessible and cost-effective health care to many Kentuckians living in rural areas of the Sixth District. Fiscal Responsibility Andy supported H.R. 3, the Spending Cuts to Expired and Unnecessary Programs Act, which cuts wasteful spending and restores fiscal responsibility with the federal government’s use of hard-earned taxpayer dollars. Andy supported reforms to the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) that would place the program on a sustainable financial path for the future while ensuring it still offers affordable insurance to Kentuckians in flood prone areas. Some of the reforms that Andy supported included greater use of LIDAR for better flood maps, enhanced flood prevention resources to reduce the number and cost of claims, and changes to increase private sector participation. Today the program is $20.5 billion in debt and that is after a $16 billion bailout in 2017. Andy supported reforms to government sponsored enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that would increase access to mortgages for qualified, credit-worthy borrowers and minimize the risk of future taxpayer bailouts, similar to those that occurred during the 2008 financial crisis. Andy voted for the Balanced Budget Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The amendment would prohibit total outlays for each fiscal year form exceeding total receipts for that fiscal year unless Congress authorizes the excess by a three-fifths roll call vote of each chamber. This measure failed as it did not receive two-thirds support. Andy supported the American Health Care Act, which would have been the largest reform to mandatory spending in our nation’s history. Andy introduced the Saving Lives, Saving Costs Act, which would reduce wasteful spending in health care by up to $66 billion over ten years through comprehensive tort reform. Andy supported the House Republican “Building a Better America” Budget that would balance the budget in 10 years without raising taxes. Voted in favor for the Farm Bill, including reforms to SNAP that introduce work requirements for able-bodied, working age adults. Andy has supported regular order for appropriations, which includes all 12 FY17 appropriations bills the House passed and Senate failed to consider. These appropriation bills contained numerous reforms to restore fiscal responsibility. Co-Chaired the Republican Study Committee’s Empowerment working group, which aims to promote upward mobility and importance of work within our nation’s welfare programs to move individuals off government assistance and help them lead independent lives. Veterans Andy established the Sixth District Veterans Coalition, which meets quarterly and has helped hundreds of veterans resolve problems with the VA, appeal disability claims and even replace medals. Andy introduced legislation to rename the two Lexington VA Medical Center campuses in honor of two Kentucky World War II heroes, Troy Bowling and Franklin Sousley. This legislation was signed into law on March 9, 2018 and were officially renamed in August 2018. Andy supported the VA Mission Act, which consolidates the VA’s seven community health care programs into one program, funds the VA Choice Program, and expands the VA Caregiver Program to all eras. Andy introduced the Military Sexual Assault Victims Empowerment (SAVE) Act, which would allow survivors of military sexual trauma (MST) to receive the treatment of their choice outside of the VA system. Andy passed an amendment to increase funding for equine assisted therapy to help our returning warriors recover from the psychological scars of combat. Andy supported the Harry W. Colmery Veterans Educational Assistance Act, which expanded GI bill eligibility, removed the time restriction on the use of the GI bill for eligible recipients, and increased funding for Reservists and Guardsmen. Andy succeeded in petitioning the Secretary of the Department of Interior to recommend the Camp Nelson Civil War Heritage Park in Jessamine County be designated a National Monument.	”
—Barr for Congress

Social media

Twitter accounts

Tweets by AmyMcGrathKY Tweets by barrforcongress

Facebook accounts

Click the icons below to visit the candidates' Facebook pages.

Amy McGrath

Andy Barr

Pivot Counties

See also: Pivot Counties by state

One of 120 Kentucky counties—0.83 percent—is a pivot county. Pivot counties are counties that voted for Barack Obama (D) in 2008 and 2012 and for Donald Trump (R) in 2016. Altogether, the nation had 206 pivot counties, with most being concentrated in upper midwestern and northeastern states.

Counties won by Trump in 2016 and Obama in 2012 and 2008
County	Trump margin of victory in 2016	Obama margin of victory in 2012	Obama margin of victory in 2008
Elliott County, Kentucky	44.13%	2.50%	25.17%

In the 2016 presidential election, Donald Trump (R) won Kentucky with 62.5 percent of the vote. Hillary Clinton (D) received 32.7 percent. In presidential elections between 1792 and 2016, Kentucky voted Democratic 45.6 percent of the time and Republican 26.3 percent of the time. In the five presidential elections between 2000 and 2016, Kentucky voted Republican all five times.

Presidential results by legislative district

The following table details results of the 2012 and 2016 presidential elections by state House districts in Kentucky. Click [show] to expand the table. The "Obama," "Romney," "Clinton," and "Trump" columns describe the percent of the vote each presidential candidate received in the district. The "2012 Margin" and "2016 Margin" columns describe the margin of victory between the two presidential candidates in those years. The "Party Control" column notes which party held that seat heading into the 2018 general election. Data on the results of the 2012 and 2016 presidential elections broken down by state legislative districts was compiled by Daily Kos.

In 2012, Barack Obama (D) won 18 out of 100 state House districts in Kentucky with an average margin of victory of 24.5 points. In 2016, Hillary Clinton (D) won 18 out of 100 state House districts in Kentucky with an average margin of victory of 25 points. Clinton won one district controlled by a Republican heading into the 2018 elections.

In 2012, Mitt Romney (R) won 82 out of 100 state House districts in Kentucky with an average margin of victory of 32.8 points. In 2016, Donald Trump (R) won 82 out of 100 state House districts in Kentucky with an average margin of victory of 42 points. Trump won 20 districts controlled by Democrats heading into the 2018 elections.

2016 presidential results by state House district
District	Obama	Romney	2012 Margin	Clinton	Trump	2016 Margin	Party Control
1	28.28%	70.29%	R+42	21.07%	75.71%	R+54.6	R
2	28.39%	70.02%	R+41.6	19.66%	76.54%	R+56.9	R
3	40.47%	57.82%	R+17.3	36.33%	58.93%	R+22.6	D
4	28.50%	70.01%	R+41.5	19.59%	76.79%	R+57.2	R
5	34.38%	63.66%	R+29.3	28.15%	66.52%	R+38.4	R
6	32.05%	66.22%	R+34.2	22.63%	73.37%	R+50.7	D
7	34.35%	64.05%	R+29.7	25.60%	69.99%	R+44.4	R
8	45.14%	53.78%	R+8.6	40.22%	56.32%	R+16.1	R
9	29.19%	69.46%	R+40.3	22.92%	73.34%	R+50.4	R
10	40.43%	57.99%	R+17.6	29.06%	66.06%	R+37	D
11	43.65%	55.17%	R+11.5	34.91%	60.53%	R+25.6	R
12	31.04%	67.42%	R+36.4	20.94%	75.28%	R+54.3	R
13	46.17%	51.87%	R+5.7	39.24%	54.05%	R+14.8	R
14	31.99%	66.02%	R+34	22.42%	73.01%	R+50.6	R
15	35.13%	63.22%	R+28.1	23.89%	72.90%	R+49	R
16	31.83%	66.81%	R+35	24.20%	72.59%	R+48.4	R
17	29.65%	69.19%	R+39.5	26.55%	68.13%	R+41.6	R
18	30.68%	67.92%	R+37.2	21.96%	74.00%	R+52	R
19	36.66%	61.97%	R+25.3	28.23%	67.66%	R+39.4	R
20	47.55%	50.21%	R+2.7	47.28%	45.81%	D+1.5	D
21	29.72%	68.87%	R+39.2	19.57%	77.59%	R+58	R
22	30.68%	68.01%	R+37.3	22.20%	73.97%	R+51.8	D
23	32.54%	65.99%	R+33.5	23.11%	72.94%	R+49.8	R
24	35.21%	63.25%	R+28	24.18%	72.15%	R+48	R
25	36.11%	62.25%	R+26.1	29.69%	64.91%	R+35.2	R
26	32.43%	66.01%	R+33.6	25.01%	70.56%	R+45.6	R
27	42.17%	56.05%	R+13.9	30.64%	64.67%	R+34	D
28	44.94%	53.71%	R+8.8	37.86%	57.69%	R+19.8	D
29	39.17%	59.62%	R+20.5	38.23%	56.76%	R+18.5	R
30	71.73%	26.98%	D+44.8	69.58%	25.88%	D+43.7	D
31	50.04%	48.33%	D+1.7	50.75%	43.48%	D+7.3	D
32	43.38%	55.29%	R+11.9	47.38%	46.66%	D+0.7	R
33	41.13%	57.48%	R+16.3	43.59%	50.25%	R+6.7	R
34	59.79%	37.94%	D+21.9	65.14%	28.16%	D+37	D
35	56.21%	41.52%	D+14.7	53.85%	39.87%	D+14	D
36	32.23%	66.72%	R+34.5	35.92%	58.96%	R+23	R
37	49.68%	48.67%	D+1	44.50%	49.97%	R+5.5	D
38	54.21%	44.14%	D+10.1	48.62%	46.39%	D+2.2	D
39	33.35%	64.62%	R+31.3	30.32%	63.52%	R+33.2	D
40	67.80%	30.82%	D+37	64.07%	31.32%	D+32.8	D
41	76.55%	21.94%	D+54.6	75.28%	19.22%	D+56.1	D
42	85.66%	12.50%	D+73.2	84.31%	10.77%	D+73.5	D
43	76.26%	23.02%	D+53.2	74.36%	21.81%	D+52.6	D
44	60.58%	38.30%	D+22.3	55.32%	41.13%	D+14.2	D
45	37.40%	60.69%	R+23.3	41.04%	51.95%	R+10.9	R
46	54.38%	44.35%	D+10	50.32%	44.79%	D+5.5	D
47	40.04%	58.29%	R+18.3	25.17%	70.32%	R+45.2	D
48	41.16%	57.55%	R+16.4	46.46%	48.29%	R+1.8	R
49	32.77%	65.53%	R+32.8	23.27%	72.25%	R+49	D
50	41.07%	57.59%	R+16.5	30.97%	64.66%	R+33.7	R
51	26.66%	72.21%	R+45.5	19.84%	76.57%	R+56.7	R
52	22.27%	76.72%	R+54.4	15.23%	82.44%	R+67.2	R
53	30.93%	67.34%	R+36.4	21.74%	73.75%	R+52	R
54	30.10%	68.30%	R+38.2	26.05%	69.78%	R+43.7	R
55	28.09%	70.49%	R+42.4	23.18%	70.94%	R+47.8	R
56	42.41%	55.60%	R+13.2	40.91%	52.53%	R+11.6	D
57	50.60%	47.40%	D+3.2	45.10%	49.31%	R+4.2	D
58	35.55%	63.19%	R+27.6	30.51%	64.14%	R+33.6	R
59	30.49%	67.97%	R+37.5	30.74%	63.05%	R+32.3	R
60	27.40%	70.85%	R+43.4	24.75%	69.46%	R+44.7	R
61	30.41%	68.03%	R+37.6	21.75%	73.63%	R+51.9	R
62	37.00%	61.15%	R+24.2	31.04%	63.50%	R+32.5	R
63	31.20%	66.99%	R+35.8	31.78%	61.61%	R+29.8	R
64	31.06%	67.21%	R+36.2	26.56%	67.11%	R+40.5	R
65	56.23%	41.12%	D+15.1	50.32%	42.57%	D+7.8	D
66	28.55%	69.70%	R+41.2	25.31%	68.35%	R+43	R
67	48.32%	49.06%	R+0.7	44.07%	48.71%	R+4.6	D
68	31.30%	66.80%	R+35.5	29.27%	64.48%	R+35.2	R
69	38.90%	58.93%	R+20	34.35%	58.94%	R+24.6	R
70	35.60%	62.91%	R+27.3	23.57%	72.93%	R+49.4	D
71	22.53%	75.99%	R+53.5	18.98%	77.49%	R+58.5	R
72	40.10%	58.03%	R+17.9	32.18%	63.34%	R+31.2	D
73	32.99%	65.40%	R+32.4	28.17%	67.15%	R+39	R
74	36.76%	61.45%	R+24.7	26.75%	69.75%	R+43	R
75	56.44%	40.17%	D+16.3	59.29%	32.42%	D+26.9	D
76	54.20%	43.37%	D+10.8	54.52%	39.06%	D+15.5	D
77	70.90%	26.97%	D+43.9	67.96%	26.00%	D+42	D
78	35.41%	62.52%	R+27.1	25.41%	70.22%	R+44.8	R
79	52.52%	44.89%	D+7.6	54.48%	38.07%	D+16.4	D
80	25.27%	73.15%	R+47.9	18.88%	77.48%	R+58.6	R
81	41.73%	55.80%	R+14.1	39.31%	54.03%	R+14.7	R
82	20.17%	78.63%	R+58.5	14.96%	82.26%	R+67.3	R
83	18.35%	80.19%	R+61.8	13.46%	83.72%	R+70.3	R
84	18.79%	79.76%	R+61	17.84%	79.62%	R+61.8	R
85	16.98%	81.77%	R+64.8	13.26%	83.41%	R+70.1	R
86	21.03%	77.60%	R+56.6	14.55%	82.39%	R+67.8	R
87	21.56%	76.86%	R+55.3	15.69%	81.91%	R+66.2	D
88	37.91%	60.16%	R+22.3	42.13%	50.98%	R+8.8	R
89	21.00%	77.27%	R+56.3	17.30%	78.99%	R+61.7	R
90	14.04%	84.43%	R+70.4	11.55%	85.97%	R+74.4	R
91	26.26%	71.89%	R+45.6	21.15%	75.56%	R+54.4	R
92	26.17%	71.86%	R+45.7	20.45%	76.99%	R+56.5	R
93	22.68%	75.61%	R+52.9	15.01%	82.81%	R+67.8	D
94	20.88%	76.88%	R+56	17.76%	78.99%	R+61.2	D
95	30.76%	66.72%	R+36	23.50%	73.36%	R+49.9	R
96	33.82%	63.97%	R+30.1	20.35%	76.02%	R+55.7	R
97	25.32%	72.56%	R+47.2	17.72%	79.37%	R+61.6	R
98	39.52%	58.63%	R+19.1	25.37%	71.06%	R+45.7	R
99	40.29%	57.31%	R+17	28.36%	67.88%	R+39.5	D
100	41.11%	56.89%	R+15.8	29.95%	65.87%	R+35.9	D
Total	37.81%	60.51%	R+22.7	32.69%	62.54%	R+29.8	-
Source: Daily Kos

2016

See also: Kentucky's 6th Congressional District election, 2016

Heading into the election, Ballotpedia rated this race as safely Republican. Incumbent Andy Barr (R) won re-election to his third term, defeating challenger Nancy Jo Kemper (D) in the general election on November 8, 2016. Barr defeated Roger Brill in the Republican primary, while Kemper defeated Geoff Young to win the Democratic nomination. The primary elections took place on May 17, 2016.

U.S. House, Kentucky District 6 General Election, 2016

Party		Candidate	Vote %	Votes
	Republican	Andy Barr Incumbent	61.1%	202,099
	Democratic	Nancy Jo Kemper	38.9%	128,728
Total Votes				330,827
Source: Kentucky Secretary of State

U.S. House, Kentucky District 6 Republican Primary, 2016

Candidate	Vote %	Votes
Andy Barr Incumbent	84.5%	25,212
Roger Brill	15.5%	4,608
Total Votes		29,820
Source: Kentucky State Board of Elections

U.S. House, Kentucky District 6 Democratic Primary, 2016

Candidate	Vote %	Votes
Nancy Jo Kemper	80.1%	63,440
Geoff Young	19.9%	15,772
Total Votes		79,212
Source: Kentucky State Board of Elections

2014

See also: Kentucky's 6th Congressional District elections, 2014

The 6th Congressional District of Kentucky held an election for the U.S. House of Representatives on November 4, 2014. Incumbent Andy Barr (R) defeated challenger Elisabeth Jensen (D) in the general election.

U.S. House, Kentucky District 6 General Election, 2014

Party		Candidate	Vote %	Votes
	Republican	Andy Barr Incumbent	60%	147,404
	Democratic	Elisabeth Jensen	40%	98,290
Total Votes				245,694
Source: Kentucky Secretary of State

General election candidates

• Andy Barr - Incumbent
• Elisabeth Jensen

May 20, 2014, primary results

Republican Primary

• Andy Barr - Incumbenta

Democratic Primary

• Elisabeth Jensen: Director of the non-profit Race for Educationa
• Geoff Young

Failed to file

• Michael Coblenz

Withdrew from race

• Joe Palumbo

2012

See also: Kentucky's 6th Congressional District elections, 2012

The 6th Congressional District of Kentucky held an election for the U.S. House of Representatives on November 6, 2012. Republican Andy Barr defeated incumbent Ben Chandler in the election.

U.S. House, Kentucky District 6 General Election, 2012

Party		Candidate	Vote %	Votes
	Republican	Andy Barr	50.6%	153,222
	Democratic	Ben Chandler Incumbent	46.7%	141,438
	Independent	Randolph Vance	2.8%	8,340
Total Votes				303,000
Source: Kentucky Board of Elections "2012 General Election Official Vote Totals"

2010

On November 2, 2010, Ben Chandler won re-election to the United States House. He defeated Garland "Andy" Barr, (R), C. Wes Collins (Write-In) and Randolph S. Vance (Write-In) in the general election.

U.S. House, Kentucky District 6 General Election, 2010
Party		Candidate	Vote %	Votes
	Democratic	Ben Chandler incumbent	50.1%	119,812
	Republican	Garland "Andy" Barr	49.8%	119,164
	Write-in	C. Wes Collins	0.1%	225
	Write-in	Randolph S. Vance	0%	22
Total Votes				239,223

2008

On November 4, 2008, Ben Chandler won re-election to the United States House. He defeated Jon Larson (R) in the general election.

U.S. House, Kentucky District 6 General Election, 2008
Party		Candidate	Vote %	Votes
	Democratic	Ben Chandler incumbent	64.7%	203,764
	Republican	Jon Larson	35.3%	111,378
Total Votes				315,142

2006

On November 7, 2006, Ben Chandler won re-election to the United States House. He defeated Paul Ard (L) in the general election.

U.S. House, Kentucky District 6 General Election, 2006
Party		Candidate	Vote %	Votes
	Democratic	Ben Chandler incumbent	85.5%	158,765
	Libertarian	Paul Ard	14.5%	27,015
Total Votes				185,780

2004

On November 2, 2004, Ben Chandler won re-election to the United States House. He defeated Tom Buford (R), Mark Gailey (L) and Stacy Abner (Constitution Party) in the general election.

U.S. House, Kentucky District 6 General Election, 2004
Party		Candidate	Vote %	Votes
	Democratic	Ben Chandler incumbent	58.6%	175,355
	Republican	Tom Buford	40%	119,716
	Libertarian	Mark Gailey	0.6%	1,758
	Constitution Party	Stacy Abner	0.8%	2,388
Total Votes				299,217

2002

On November 5, 2002, Ernie Fletcher won re-election to the United States House. He defeated Gatewood Galbraith (I) and Mark Gailey (L) in the general election.

U.S. House, Kentucky District 6 General Election, 2002
Party		Candidate	Vote %	Votes
	Republican	Ernie Fletcher incumbent	72%	115,622
	Independent	Gatewood Galbraith	26%	41,753
	Libertarian	Mark Gailey	2.1%	3,313
Total Votes				160,688

2000

On November 7, 2000, Ernie Fletcher won re-election to the United States House. He defeated Scotty Baesler (D), Gatewood Galbraith (I) and Joseph Novak (L) in the general election.

U.S. House, Kentucky District 6 General Election, 2000
Party		Candidate	Vote %	Votes
	Republican	Ernie Fletcher incumbent	52.8%	142,971
	Democratic	Scotty Baesler	34.8%	94,167
	Independent	Gatewood Galbraith	12%	32,436
	Libertarian	Joseph Novak	0.5%	1,229
Total Votes				270,803

State overview

Partisan control

This section details the partisan control of federal and state positions in Kentucky heading into the 2018 elections.

Congressional delegation

• Following the 2016 elections, Republicans held both U.S. Senate seats in Kentucky.
• Republicans held five of the six U.S. House seats in Kentucky.

State executives

• As of May 2018, Republicans held five of 11 state executive positions, and Democrats held two. Four state executive positions were held by nonpartisan officials.
• The governor of Kentucky was Republican Matt Bevin.

State legislature

• Republicans controlled both chambers of the Kentucky State Legislature. As of September, 2018, they had a 63-37 majority in the state House and a 27-11 majority in the state Senate.

Trifecta status

• Kentucky was a Republican trifecta, meaning that the Republican Party held the governorship and both chambers of the state legislature.

2018 elections

See also: Kentucky elections, 2018

Kentucky held elections for the following positions in 2018:

• All six U.S. House seats
• 19 of 38 state Senate seats
• All 100 state House seats
• One state supreme court seat
• One state court of appeals seat
• Local judicial seats
• Local school board seats
• Mayor of Lexington and Lexington City Council
• Mayor of Louisville and Louisville City Council

Demographics

Demographic data for Kentucky
	Kentucky	U.S.
Total population:	4,424,611	316,515,021
Land area (sq mi):	39,486	3,531,905
Race and ethnicity**
White:	87.6%	73.6%
Black/African American:	7.9%	12.6%
Asian:	1.3%	5.1%
Native American:	0.2%	0.8%
Pacific Islander:	0%	0.2%
Two or more:	2.1%	3%
Hispanic/Latino:	3.3%	17.1%
Education
High school graduation rate:	84.2%	86.7%
College graduation rate:	22.3%	29.8%
Income
Median household income:	$43,740	$53,889
Persons below poverty level:	22.7%	11.3%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, "American Community Survey" (5-year estimates 2010-2015) Click here for more information on the 2020 census and here for more on its impact on the redistricting process in Kentucky. **Note: Percentages for race and ethnicity may add up to more than 100 percent because respondents may report more than one race and the Hispanic/Latino ethnicity may be selected in conjunction with any race. Read more about race and ethnicity in the census here.

As of July 2016, Kentucky had a population of approximately 4,436,974 people, with its three largest cities being Louisville (pop. est. 616,261), Lexington (pop. est. 318,449), and Bowling Green (pop. est. 65,234). The chart on the right shows demographic information for Kentucky from 2010 to 2015. The graphs below show racial demographics and levels of educational attainment in Kentucky compared to the rest of the country.

State history

This section provides an overview of federal and state elections in Kentucky from 2000 to 2016. All data comes from the Kentucky State Board of Elections.

Historical elections

Presidential elections, 2000-2016

This chart shows the results of the presidential election in Kentucky every year from 2000 to 2016.

Election results (President of the United States), Kentucky 2000-2016
Year	First-place candidate	First-place candidate votes (%)	Second-place candidate	Second-place candidate votes (%)	Margin of victory (%)
2016	Donald Trump	62.5%	Hillary Clinton	32.7%	29.8%
2012	Mitt Romney	60.5%	Barack Obama	37.8%	22.7%
2008	John McCain	57.4%	Barack Obama	41.2%	16.2%
2004	George W. Bush	59.6%	John Kerry	39.7%	19.9%
2000	George W. Bush	56.5%	Al Gore	41.2%	15.3%

U.S. Senate elections, 2002-2016

This chart shows the results of U.S. Senate races in Kentucky from 2002 to 2016. Every state has two Senate seats, and each seat goes up for election every six years. The terms of the seats are staggered so that roughly one-third of the seats are up every two years.

Election results (U.S. Senator), Kentucky 2002-2016
Year	First-place candidate	First-place candidate votes (%)	Second-place candidate	Second-place candidate votes (%)	Margin of victory (%)
2016	Rand Paul	57.3%	Jim Gray	42.7%	14.6%
2014	Mitch McConnell	56.2%	Alison Lundergan Grimes	40.7%	15.5%
2010	Rand Paul	55.7%	Jack Conway	44.2%	11.5%
2008	Mitch McConnell	53.0%	Bruce Lunsford	47.0%	6.0%
2004	Jim Bunning	50.7%	Daniel Mongiardo	49.3%	1.4%
2002	Mitch McConnell	64.7%	Lois Combs Weinberg	35.3%	29.4%

Gubernatorial elections, 2003-2015

This chart shows the results of the gubernatorial elections held between 2003 and 2015. Gubernatorial elections are held every four years in Kentucky.

Election results (Governor), Kentucky 2003-2015
Year	First-place candidate	First-place candidate votes (%)	Second-place candidate	Second-place candidate votes (%)	Margin of victory (%)
2015	Matt Bevin	52.5%	Jack Conway	43.8%	8.7%
2011	Steve Beshear	55.7%	David Williams	35.3%	20.4%
2007	Steve Beshear	58.7%	Ernie Fletcher	41.3%	17.4%
2003	Ernie Fletcher	55.0%	Ben Chandler	45.0%	10.0%

Congressional delegation, 2000-2016

This chart shows the number of Democrats and Republicans who were elected to represent Kentucky in the U.S. House from 2000 to 2016. Elections for U.S. House seats are held every two years.

Congressional delegation, Kentucky 2000-2016
Year	Republicans	Republicans (%)	Democrats	Democrats (%)	Balance of power
2016	5	83.3%	1	16.7%	R+4
2014	5	83.3%	1	16.7%	R+4
2012	5	83.3%	1	16.7%	R+4
2010	4	66.7%	2	33.3%	R+2
2008	4	66.7%	2	33.3%	R+2
2006	4	66.7%	2	33.3%	R+2
2004	5	83.3%	1	16.7%	R+4
2002	5	83.3%	1	16.7%	R+4
2000	5	83.3%	1	16.7%	R+4

Trifectas, 1992-2017

A state government trifecta occurs when one party controls both chambers of the state legislature and the governor's office.

Kentucky Party Control: 1992-2025
Eight years of Democratic trifectas  •  Three years of Republican trifectas
Scroll left and right on the table below to view more years.

Year	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	00	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20	21	22	23	24	25
Governor	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	R	R	R	R	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	R	R	R	R	D	D	D	D	D	D
Senate	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R
House	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R

See also

• Kentucky's 6th Congressional District election (May 22, 2018 Democratic primary)
• Kentucky's 6th Congressional District election (May 22, 2018 Republican primary)
• United States House of Representatives elections in Kentucky, 2018
• United States House of Representatives elections, 2018

Footnotes

Ballotpedia

About

Overview • What people are saying • Support Ballotpedia • Contact • Contribute • Job opportunities

---

Executive: Leslie Graves, Founder and CEO • Gwen Beattie, Chief Operating Officer

Communications: Alison Graves, Director of Communications • Carley Allensworth • Abigail Campbell • Frank Festa • Sarah Groat • Nathaniel Harwood • Dillon Redmond • Erica Shumaker
External Relations: Geoff Pallay, Director of External Relations • Ken Carbullido, Vice President of Election Product and Technology Strategy • Ashley Fleming • Thomas Mardik • Hannah Nelson
Operations: Meghann Olshefski, Director of Operations • Amanda Herbert • Mandy Morris • Caroline Presnell • Kelly Rindfleisch
Tech: Matt Latourelle, Director of Technology Operations • Ryan Burch • Kirsten Corrao • Beth Dellea • Travis Eden • Tate Kamish • Margaret Kearney • Eric Lotto • Joseph Sanchez • Mary Susmitha

Contributors: Scott Rasmussen

---

Editorial Content

Josh Altic, Director of Content • Daniel Anderson, Associate Director of Elections & Data • Cory Eucalitto, Associate Director of Features • Ryan Byrne, Managing Editor of Ballot Measures • Mandy McConnell, Managing Editor of News • Doug Kronaizl, Managing Editor of Local Expansion • Abbey Smith, Managing Editor of Elections • Janie Valentine, Managing Editor of Law • Joel Williams. Managing Editor of Events • Andrew Bahl • Jaclyn Beran • Marielle Bricker • Joseph Brusgard • Emma Burlingame • Kelly Coyle • Jon Dunn • Thomas Ellis • Nicole Fisher • Joseph Greaney • Thomas Grobben • Brianna Hosea • Molly Kehoe • Tyler King • Glorie Martinez • Norm Leahy, Senior Editor • Nathan Maxwell • Jimmy McAllister • Brandon McCauley • Ellie Mikus • Ellen Morrissey • Mackenzie Murphy • Kaley Platek • Samantha Post • Adam Powell • Annelise Reinwald • Ethan Rice • Spencer Richardson • Victoria Rose • Briana Ryan • Myj Saintyl • Maddy Salucka • Emma Soukup • Alexis Thacker • Mina Vogel • Samuel Wonacott • Trenton Woodcox

[show]

Kentucky's current delegation to the United States Congress

Senators

Mitch McConnell (R)

Rand Paul (R)

Representatives

District 1

James Comer (R)

District 2

Brett Guthrie (R)

District 3

Morgan McGarvey (D)

District 4

Thomas Massie (R)

District 5

Hal Rogers (R)

District 6

Andy Barr (R)

Republican Party (7)

Democratic Party (1)