And this article doesn't even make sense on its own terms.
The author is totally all over the place. In the beginning he says:
"The true lesson lies in the overwhelming success of Kentucky's down-ballot election results for attorney general, agriculture commissioner, auditor, secretary of state, and treasurer, where Republican candidates demolished Democrat candidates by margins of 221,125; 276,319; 204,960; 64,562; and 300,935 votes, respectively."
OK. So the true lesson is that the down-ballot results were overwhelmingly good for republicans. But then in the very next sentence he writes:
If Bevin is certified the loser, it will come down to the fact that tens or hundreds of thousands of Kentuckians, who had no problem voting for other Republicans this year and Bevin four years ago, decided to stay home or cast their votes for Democrat Andy Beshear or the Libertarian candidate, John Hicks (who garnered 28,442 votes).
Sorry but the true lesson just one sentence earlier was about the success of the down-market races, which the people who stayed home had nothing to do with. By definition, they are not part of the true lesson. And the people who voted for the Libertarian only account for about 10% of the split votes.
The true lesson is that the author's candidate deserved to win the race for the office that he was entitled to hold, but then he lost, and now the author is mad at the voters because it's all their fault.
The voters are the boss, and they get the final word. I suspect they chose poorly. They (and everyone who supported Bevin) get to live with the results.
I think it's empty virtue signaling from those who don't think very hard about their vote or government.