Not the 91%. The 9%

The Kentucky-4 primary concluded yesterday, and the results were overwhelming. Incumbent contrarian Republican Thomas Massie lost to newcomer Ed Gallrein, 55% to 45%. The AP immediately framed it as “another win for Trump.”

The online contrarians Libertarian crowd is now pitching absolute hissy-fits over the result. This is why I will never vote Big-L Libertarian. I still hold a few small-l libertarian principles, but as a political movement, Libertarians need to grow up and stand for something - not just oppose the party in power.

All the excuses I keep seeing for Massie’s loss completely miss the point. “Money.” “Establishment pressure.” “The Epstein files.” “He stood on principle.” None of that is why he lost. Nobody in Kentucky was sitting around saying, “I’m voting against Massie because his opponent has more money and will protect the Epstein list.”

Massie lost because Republican voters eventually get tired of politicians who seem to break ranks precisely when the stakes are highest.

Conservatives can tolerate disagreement on small matters. What they cannot stand are Republicans who reliably become “independent thinkers” (read: contrarian) only when major movement priorities are on the line. That is why Romney became hated. It is why Susan Collins and Murkowski constantly infuriate the Republican base. And despite what the internet contrarians want to pretend, that same perception eventually attached itself to Massie.

Massie loved reminding everyone he voted with Republicans roughly 91% of the time. The problem is that only about 9% of bills are truly consequential. Most legislation is procedural sludge, naming post offices, moving commas around, or funding things everybody already knows will pass. The meaningful votes are the ones tied to border security, deportation policy, ICE, taxes, budgets, spending fights, and movement-defining political priorities.

Guess which votes people remember.

The 91% barely matters politically if voters believe the critical 9% always seems to land against them.

And the Libertarians screaming online are unintentionally proving the exact point. I even saw Democrats openly encouraging support for Massie specifically because he was willing to oppose Trump-backed Republican priorities when the pressure was highest. Think about that carefully. If your political enemies are explicitly promoting you in a Republican primary because you obstruct Republican priorities, maybe Republican voters are not irrational for eventually noticing.

Massie tried to brand himself as some kind of pure constitutional guardian above partisan politics. Fine. Then explain this little inconsistency: when Trump was in office, Massie opposed raising the debt ceiling and claimed doing so was unconstitutional. But when Biden was in office, suddenly Massie voted to raise it.

Interesting how constitutional absolutism sometimes develops selective timing.

To be clear, I am not arguing that Ed Gallrein is some flawless savior incarnate. Politicians are politicians. Time will tell what kind of representative he becomes (presuming he prevails in the General Election later this year).

But quit pretending Massie was fundamentally different from the same style of “principled contrarian Republican” that conservatives have been condemning for years. Republican voters did not reject him because they suddenly became anti-principle. They rejected him because they concluded his version of “principle” always seemed to activate at exactly the moments Republican voters least wanted obstruction.

Not the 91%.

The 9%.