Former KY rep Cherlynn Stevenson to run as Democrat to replace Barr in Congress
Stevenson said that she believes the seat is within reach for Democrats despite GOP Rep. Andy Barr's recent landslide victories.
'I know how to win in a red seat,' Stevenson said in an interview with the Herald-Leader about the race.
So, how is it done? Stevenson said she'll focus on aggressive in-person campaigning and hammering home the 'meat and potatoes' issues of prices, education and health care.
A predicted backlash to the policies of President Donald Trump, whose undulating tariff strategy has stirred uncertainty and even discontent on Wall Street, is central to her argument. The available polling on Trump's approval rating has been declining steadily.
'I think people are really scared by the chaos that they're seeing in Washington right now,' she said.
'You know, we see tariffs that are hurting our local economies and threatening a lot of jobs. We see people that are worried that the Social Security benefits aren't going to be there, that Medicaid and Medicare are in danger. You know, a carton of eggs cost more, and people's nest eggs have gone down.'
Stevenson added: 'I think that the environment is going to be right for somebody who's out there not trying to talk about the things that divide us, but about the real issues that Kentucky families and working families are facing right now.'
But while Stevenson, 48, won her seat three times, she lost on the fourth effort to Rep. Vanessa Grossl, R-Georgetown, last year.
Grossl flipped the seat — which stretches across much of suburban and rural Fayette County as well a slice of Scott County — winning by about half a percentage point two years after Stevenson won reelection by an even slimmer margin.
Republican Party of Kentucky Communications Director Andy Westberry pointed the loss out in a statement on Stevenson's candidacy.
'Cherlynn Stevenson must be a glutton for punishment. After getting rejected by voters in her own backyard, she's now aiming higher—only to fall harder. Her entry into this race isn't a serious campaign; it's a one-way ticket to political career-ending humiliation.
'Let's be clear: the 6th District is Trump Country —rock-solid Republican ground where liberal pipe dreams go to die,' Westberry wrote.
Indeed, Trump won the district by about 15 percentage points. Ever since a close three-point victory over Democrat Amy McGrath in 2018, Barr has won his last three elections by an average of 24 percentage points.
But Democratic Gov. Andy Beshear, albeit with a different off-year electorate, won the district by about 20.
And Stevenson's pledge to focus on the 'real issues' over the divisive ones sounds a lot like Beshear's classic pitch to voters, both in Kentucky and more recently on the national stage.
So where does Beshear stand on Stevenson's run? She said she spoke to the governor before making her announcement, and he was 'encouraging,'
'He was encouraging. We talked about the fact that I have been able to win in difficult districts. You know, he has endorsed me in every other race that I've ever been in, and I look forward to earning his endorsement this time,' Stevenson said.
She did not say whether she believed his endorsement would come during the primary for the seat.
A handful of other Kentucky Democrats have been mentioned as possibilities for the seat, especially since the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee listed the Central Kentucky-based district as one of their 35 Republican-held 'Districts in Play' for the 2026 cycle.
Federal prosecutor Zach Dembo and former Lexington councilman David Kloiber are two names to watch; former secretary of state Allison Lundergan Grimes is also mentioned as a potential candidate.
Fayette County makes up about 44% of the district.
The other counties in the 6th Congressional District, in order of population, are Madison, Scott, Jessamine, Montgomery, Woodford, Mercer, Bourbon, Garrard, Fleming, Estill, Powell and Nicholas. Aside from Fayette, the other counties in the district generally lean Republican.
When asked about her elevator pitch to voters, Stevenson gave a glimpse of how she feels her background – moving to the Lexington area from Eastern Kentucky, as many residents have – might help her.
'I was raised in Eastern Kentucky by a mom who was a teacher and a daddy who worked in coal and I know the values of hard work, and I know you know the struggles that everyday Kentuckians face, that I am not someone who Is there to represent a political party, but I am there to represent the people and take their hopes, their dreams and their worst fears to Washington and to fight for them,' Stevenson said.
Stevenson was raised in Knott County but has lived in Lexington for several years. She first ran for office and flipped the 88th House District in 2018. She won a close race in 2020, then won again by just 37 votes in a tight race to Republican Jim Coleman.
In Frankfort, Stevenson rose the ranks quickly to become House Democratic caucus chair four years into her time there. She was widely seen as a strong candidate for floor leader, the highest position in the caucus, before her loss.
Stevenson was the subject of a short-lived controversy last year due to an ethics complaint filed against her. The complaint centered around her co-purchasing a Frankfort condo with a lobbyist. It was swiftly dismissed by the Legislative Ethics Commission.
Stevenson's political calling card has been education. She pushed back strongly against 2024's pro-school choice amendment, which would have allowed the state legislature to fund charter and non-public K-12 schooling.
Stevenson represented the 'anti' side on the amendment question at Fancy Farm, the state's biggest political speaking event, in 2024.
The amendment ended up losing by a whopping 30 percentage points.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Miami Herald
2 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
BRN: The Social Security COLA and what it means
Since 1975, Social Security general benefit increases have been cost-of-living adjustments or COLAs (8%). Many people were disappointed when Social Security benefits only rose 2.5% at the start of the 2025. And, so far, next year's Social Security cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) does not look to be much higher. TheStreet's Maurie Backman joins Broadcast Retirement Network host Jeff Snyder to talk about the annual increase. Transcript: Jeff Snyder: This morning on BRN, the impacts of the 2025 Social Security COLA. Joining me now to discuss this and a lot more, Maurie Backman is a senior financial journalist. Maurie, happy new year. Great to see you. Thanks for joining us on the program this morning. Maurie Backman: Thanks so much for having me. I'm really excited to talk about Social Security because, you know, a new year means changes to the program, as always. Snyder: Yeah, let's talk about that, Maurie. And, you know, I think our audience is very familiar with your work because you've been on the program numerous times before. Let's talk about the cost of living adjustment or COLA for 2025. What is it and what does it mean? Backman: Sure. So years back, lawmakers decided that Social Security benefits were going to be eligible for automatic COLA. The COLA was going to be pegged to inflation so that, you know, inflation rises, benefits get a little bit of a boost. And when you think about it, I mean, it makes sense to have COLAs be automatic as opposed to needing, you know, Congress to vote in a raise to Social Security benefits year after year. It just makes the process a lot more seamless. And logically, you know, there are people who collect Social Security for 15, 20, 30 years, and the value of a dollar is going to get eroded over a period that lengthy. So we need Social Security COLAs to enable seniors to be able to maintain their buying power as living costs go up. So every year, Social Security gets a COLA. Well, actually, I shouldn't say that. Every year, Social Security is eligible for a COLA. When inflation remains flat, Social Security benefits remain flat. When there's a decrease in inflation from one year to the next, Social Security benefits also remain flat. Luckily, there's no such thing as a negative COLA. So you're not going to see your Social Security benefit decrease, thankfully, from one year to the next, even if inflation goes that route. You're only going to see your benefit stay the same or go up. Snyder: Yeah. And can you imagine, Mark, if there was a negative COLA and they started trying to reclaim Social Security benefits? Can you imagine all the people that would be lined up at the Social Security Administration? Good for them that they don't have a negative COLA. Maurie, let's talk about inflation because we have seen over the last year plus food prices increase, gasoline prices increase, other prices increase. How does this COLA factor that in and how does it compare maybe to previous years? Backman: Sure. So, you know, thankfully, inflation has cooled pretty nicely over the past year. We're not seeing the same levels of inflation that we did back in 2021 on the heels of all those stimulus policies. We're not seeing the same level of inflation as 2022. The funny thing about Social Security COLAs and inflation is that, you know, the way I've always tried to explain it is they sort of cancel each other out. So this year's COLA is 2.5%. Benefits are rising 2.5%. And a lot of seniors are, frankly, bummed about that because when we look back to recent COLAs, the year before benefits went up 3.2%. Before that, we had some of the largest COLAs in history. We had 8.7%. We had 5.9%. These were the COLAs that came about following that period of real rampant inflation that we saw following the pandemic. So, you know, a lot of people are pretty up in arms about this 2.5% COLA. Oh, it's not enough. It's such a measly little raise. But the thing to remember is that because COLAs are tied to inflation, when you have a not so generous COLA, it also means that inflation hasn't been all that bad. You kind of can't have one without the other. Right. So, you know, when seniors were seeing their benefits rise almost 6 percent or close to 9 percent, I mean, all those COLAs did was match inflation. So what you gain in one regard, you gain a higher boost, a larger boost to your Social Security benefit. You lose in the form of prices really going up a lot significantly from one year to the next. So in the past year, what we've seen is, yes, we have seen costs continue to go up. And look, I'm not retired, but I've seen my own bills increase exponentially. And I've got a family to feed. And it's stressful. It's stressful going to the supermarket and buying like six yogurts and a jug of milk and a loaf of bread. And it's like, that'll be $22.50. And it's like, what? This was like, these are groceries that I'm carrying out in my hand, you know, and a week's worth of food for my family. I mean, it seems like I'm paying more than ever. So I'm definitely sympathetic to seniors who feel that, you know, their 2.5 percent COLA is not really going to cut it for 2025. I can see where they're coming from because costs are still high. But things could also be worse. Related: Secretary Bessent's Social Security remarks spark AARP outcry Snyder: Well, they could be worse. Maurie, they could be a lot worse. I want to ask you about taxation, because how does taxation or does taxation factor into this cost of living adjustment? Does that mean anything to those directly taking Social Security? Backman: So it's a funny thing. So seniors are often shocked to learn that Social Security benefits can be taxable at the federal level. There can also be state taxes on Social Security, actually, depending on the state you live in and the amount of your total income. But the federal government can tax a portion of your Social Security benefits. And that doesn't sit well for a lot of seniors. It almost feels kind of like a double taxation, right? Because throughout our working years, we're all paying into Social Security on our wages. And, you know, the promise is that you're going to pay taxes, you're going to pay into Social Security, but then when you're older and retired, you're going to get a monthly benefit. And then it's like, hey, guess what? You're not necessarily going to keep that monthly benefit in full because once your income exceeds a certain threshold, a portion of your benefits can be taxed. Now, here's the problem. Social Security is eligible for an annual COLA, which means that benefits historically have risen from one year to the next. There have been a few years in history with a zero COLA. But for the most part, we have seen benefits rise from one year to the next. The problem is that the income thresholds that determine whether you're going to pay taxes on your Social Security benefits, those income thresholds have not increased since 1984. That's a long time ago. Snyder: I was 12. Backman: I was around. It was a long time ago. So, you know, when you kind of just then logically put those two pieces together, it's like, well, wait a minute, you know, Social Security benefits rise every year, and Social Security benefits are calculated in the formula that determines your income and that determines whether your income is high enough to have your benefits taxed, if you get what I'm saying. Basically, it's a concept called combined income. It's a factor of your adjusted gross income. It throws in any tax-exempt interest income you receive, like if you're a municipal bond investor, you might get some tax-free income. That's counted into your combined income and then also half of your annual Social Security benefit is factored into your combined income. And basically, if you're single, once your combined income is $25,000 or higher, you're going to be paying taxes on a portion of your Social Security benefits. Now, let's think about that. $25,000. I mean, you know, yes, that's factoring in half your annual Social Security benefit, but even if we want to pad that by another $10,000, $12,000, let's talk about $37,000 a year, $40,000 a year. Are you like rolling in dough at $40,000 a year? I'm not. Snyder: No, you're typically, you know, especially if you're a retiree, you're at a fixed income. And so, you know, one of the things I want to ask you about, I want to kind of close on this, is you talked about taxation now during the campaign, we're not a political show, but, you know, there were some policy preferences or suggestions about eliminating the tax on Social Security. First, Maurie, is that possible? And what would that mean to our conversation this morning about the cost of living adjustment? Related: Medicare beneficiaries quietly face looming crisis Backman: So, that's a tricky thing too, because so President-elect Trump had pledged to eliminate taxes on Social Security benefits. And a big part of me wants to say that that's a really good idea, because there's a lot of people whose income is really right above that threshold where they're liable for taxes, right? But since we just discussed that it was such a low threshold, these people cannot afford to lose some of their benefits to taxes. So, in that regard, I think eliminating taxes on Social Security benefits could be a positive thing. But then we also have to remember that Social Security doesn't just get funded by payroll taxes, it also gets funded by these taxes on benefits. Now, as it stands, we are already looking at a funding shortfall for Social Security. The program's combined trust funds are set to run dry in 2035. And at that point, benefit cuts could be on the table. So, now we have to balance the upside of not taxing Social Security so that seniors get to keep their benefits in full now versus the potential downside of, well, then what does that do to Social Security's overall financial picture? And what does that mean for benefit cuts down the line? It's a very tricky thing, and I do not envy lawmakers who have to make these decisions. And Jeff, to be clear, there's a push to not only end taxes on Social Security benefits, but also to change the way Social Security COLAs are calculated. That's a whole other issue because the reality is that the formula that's used now is not very beneficial to seniors. It really does not very accurately capture the costs that seniors specifically tend to incur. So, lawmakers really have their work cut out for them in the coming years with regard to Social Security. Snyder: They certainly do, Maurie. We've got a new Congress, a new president. Hey, look, they can't kick the can down the road too much longer because they're going to have to deal with other potential challenges. Maurie, it's always great to see you. Expert Analysis, as always. Thanks so much for joining us, and we look forward to having you back on the program again very soon. Backman: That's it. Snyder: And don't forget to subscribe to our daily newsletter, The Morning Pulse, for all the news in one place. Details, of course, at our website. And we're back again tomorrow for another edition of BRN. Until then, I'm Jeff Snyder. Stay safe, keep on saving, and don't forget, roll with the changes. Related: Jean Chatzky shares retirement tips on Social Security, Medicare The Arena Media Brands, LLC THESTREET is a registered trademark of TheStreet, Inc.
UPI
3 minutes ago
- UPI
Senate heads into recess as Trump tells Schumer to 'go to hell'
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-NY, speaks at a press conference calling on the administration to release the Epstein files in the U.S. Capitol building last week. File Photo by Annabelle Gordon/UPI | License Photo Aug. 3 (UPI) -- The U.S. Senate began its month‑long recess Saturday night amid negotiations to advance the nomination of dozens of Donald Trump's pending nominees, as the president told Sen. Chuck Schumer to "go to hell" when the talks collapsed. Trump, in a post to his Truth Social platform on Saturday, had wanted the Senate to stay in session but accused Schumer of "political extortion" for allegedly demanding a billion dollars in funding in order to approve dozens of his remaining "highly qualified nominees" for appointment to the administration. A source familiar with Schumer's alleged demands told Axios that Schumer wants the White House to release withheld federal funding in exchange for passing a small batch of the nominees. "Tell Schumer, who is under tremendous political pressure from within his own party, the Radical Left Lunatics, to GO TO HELL!" Trump said in his post. "Do not accept the offer, go home and explain to your constituents what bad people the Democrats are, and what a great job the Republicans are doing, and have done, for our country." Schumer later shared Trump's post and quipped, "The Art of the Deal." He later added that Trump had "attempted to steamroll" the Senate into approving his "historically unqualified nominees." But the standoff has led Senate Republicans to express support for the possibility that Trump use recess appointments, a controversial constitutional mechanism that allows the president to "temporarily" fill vacant positions when the Senate is in recess. "The Senate should immediately adjourn and let President Trump use recess appointments to enact the agenda 77M Americans voted for," Sen. Roger Marshall posted on Saturday. Senate Republicans also indicated they might pursue a change to Senate rules after they return from recess to make it easier to pass through confirmations. Sen. Markwayne Mullin told Fox News that lawmakers would be moving forward with a rule change in September.
Fox News
3 minutes ago
- Fox News
Sen. Mullin pushes for Senate rule changes as Trump nominees stalled: 'Not our fault'
Sen. Markwayne Mullin, R-Okla., breaks down the Senate GOP's efforts to pass President Donald Trump's nominations and the resistance from the Democrats.
