Looking for demographics, elections & analysis?
You've come to the RIGHT place!


Census data for states, counties, cities and more


Current and historical election results

Election Results


Office holders, biographies, voting records

Candidates and Office Holders

Latest Demographics and Elections Commentary

6/13/2024: This Week's Primaries; Meltdown in Maine; The Last Sane Senate Democrat? [RightDataUSA]

Photo credit: WFMJ

Although Republican Michael Rulli easily won (54.6% to 45.3%) Tuesday's special election in Ohio's 6th congressional district over Democrat Michael Kripchak, media liberals are gloating about the Democrat's "moral victory", which is something they do in every special election where their candidate isn't completely blown out of the water by the voters.

In this case, they have a minor point. This R+16 district routinely elects Republicans by 30-point margins, not mere 9-point margins. In extremely low-turnout special elections like this one, normal patterns do not always hold but they typically resume when more voters participate, as they will in November when these two Michaels will face off again. Customary GOP complacency and Democrat wishful thinking aside, there was no discernable reason for the closeness of the outcome in Ohio. Back in March, Rulli was engaged in a hotly-contested primary with fellow Republican Reggie Stoltzfus and one other candidate, however it was conducted in a generally amicable way with very little mud being tossed around; there should have been no lingering animosities from that contest.

Furthermore, while Rulli and Stoltzfus combined to raise and spend over $1.2 million in trying to win this seat, the hapless Democrat challenger raised only $22,000. National Democrats didn't invest anything here for the special election, and they won't do so for November either because they know they are not flipping any R+16 district. It would be the equivalent of the GOP winning a typical district in Massachusetts. And that ain't happening, at any price.

Photo credit: Nancy Mace/Youtube, Getty Images

Nancy Mace 1, Kevin McCarthy 0: In South Carolina, embattled Nancy Mace had an easier than expected time defeating Catherine Templeton, who was a sock puppet for disgraced ex-House Speaker Kevin McCarthy. Mace received approximately 57% of the Republican primary vote and thus easily avoided the runoff election which would have been necessary if she had failed to achieve 50%.

McCarthy and his well-funded allies created a political action committee (PAC) and spent over $2 million through that PAC for the sole purpose of exacting some revenge on Mace for her 2023 vote to topple the ineffective McCarthy from the Speakership. Tuesday's outcome does not necessarily mean that McCarthy and his minions are accepting defeat; it may just be round one.

As we noted previously, the liberal GOP establishment in this district (and nationally) are by no means averse to sabotaging primary-winning Republicans whom they loathe. Recall 2018 in this district, when Republican nominee Katie Arrington was repeatedly backstabbed by her own party, which caused her to lose the general election to a Democrat that November. The GOPe may repeat that tactic here in 2024, perhaps quietly working on behalf of liberal corporate DEI (Didn't Earn It) stooge Michael Moore -- or perhaps taking a more in-your-face approach and daring the good voters of South Carolina's 1st congressional district to do something about it. Moore spent a large sum to buy his win in the Democrat primary, and -- with some help from anti-Mace moderate/liberal Republicans -- is surely counting on raising a lot more. The anti-Mace PAC which was heavily involved in Mace's primary still has at least $1 million in the bank.

But it's still an R+7 district and Mace, though not exactly dominating on Tuesday, still received more votes than both Democrat candidates combined. She's not perfectly safe for November, but Mace is certainly favored to win. She just needs to watch her back at all times.

C.I.V.O. -- "Conservative In Voting Only": Elsewhere in the Palmetto State on Tuesday, incumbent Republican William Timmons in CD-4 (Greenville/Spartanburg) barely survived a primary challenge from his right, just as he had barely survived a similar but less focused threat two years earlier. In this heavily Republican district, a primary win is often tantamount to election because Democrats either do not field any candidate at all, or they make only the smallest token effort.

Timmons, now completing his third term in Congress, has displayed conservative tendencies when voting on legislation. The American Conservative Union gives Timmons a lifetime rating of over 90% and he toes the party line (such as that party line sometimes is) at least 95% of the time; he cannot technically be called a "RINO".

On the other hand, there is more to a congressman than how he votes. Given his vastly underwhelming performance in primary elections lately, it is clear that Timmons has done something to annoy a sizable portion of his party's base.

Among other reasons for annoyance, Timmons is definitely not a "fighter" for conservative causes. Timmons was a staunch supporter of disgraced ex-House Speaker Kevin McCarthy and, as a go-along-to-get-along type, would hardly be uncomfortable as a Republican back-bencher in a Democrat-controlled House. Which is something he may well get to see first-hand in 2025. Timmons has rejected calls to join the House Freedom Caucus, that "far-right" group of conservatives who dare to try to influence legislation (gasp!); they also try to influence the moderate House leadership, of which they comprise no part. In order to avert retaliation (which shows you how the GOPe works) the membership list of the House Freedom Caucus is never disclosed. Timmons proudly declares that he is not now nor has he ever been a member of that group, and he also complains that the Caucus is a hindrance to getting certain (liberal) legislation through the House.

Timmons has some other issues (extramarital affairs, support for racist DEI crap) which bolster the assertion that he is not worthy of re-election. In this year's CD-4 primary, unabashed Freedom Caucus member Matt Gaetz of Florida threw his support behind conservative state legislator Adam Morgan; Donald Trump, in an action so typical as to practically be mandatory, threw his support behind the wimpy incumbent even though there was no risk whatsoever of the conservative Morgan losing to a Democrat in November. [The same thing applied in the North Dakota U.S. House race, where Trump bypassed solid conservative Rich Becker in order to endorse a likely RINO in a district which had no incumbent running -- and, like in SC-4, no viable Democrat opposition in November either.]

The South Carolina squish eked out a win on Tuesday, with 51.6% to 48.4% for Morgan. Timmons raised and spent nearly $2 million, although $900,000 of that came from a loan which Timmons was able to make to his campaign. Morgan actually outraised the incumbent swamp critter in terms of individual mom-n-pop type contributions, while Timmons had much greater support from the political/corporate sector, and his own bank account.

Photo credit: Alchetron

The focus in Maine was on the winnable second congressional district which has been held by Democrat Jared Golden since his surprising "Rigged Choice Voting" victory in 2018. Maine voters (mostly Democrats) had just approved a ballot initiative implementing the RCV scheme which took effect in 2018, and those Democrats were delighted when Golden defeated incumbent moderate Republican Bruce Poliquin thanks solely to the provisions of Rigged Choice Voting; without that, Poliquin was the winner.

Golden is extremely well-funded by left-wing labor unions and the "Israel Lobby", and in the past he has done a good job of fooling the voters of CD-2 by faking to the center whenever necessary. The district is rated as R+6 -- that's not even particularly "marginal"; it's an outright Republican district. Trump won CD-2 in both 2016 and 2020, taking the electoral vote which goes with that victory. Alterations to CD-2 in the most recent redistricting were not significant.

As mentioned, Golden has become adept at fooling the voters; yes, he is in fact one of the more "moderate" Democrats in the House, which only means that instead of being 98% liberal he is normally merely 88% liberal. However this year Golden is running scared to an extent which he never has before. In 2024, Golden has broken with his party over 40% of the time on Party Unity votes and on "key" votes he has actually voted with the GOP a whopping 60% of the time. Golden has suddenly become a true moderate; of course the liberal media now considers him a "conservative", which like most everything in the liberal media, is gaslighting propaganda.

Golden was unopposed in this week's primary. His Republican challenger (pictured above) in November will be former NASCAR driver and racing champion Austin Theriault. Theriault, a freshman member of the Maine House, defeated fellow freshman legislator Michael Soboleski in what was apparently a real bloodbath of a primary. Theriault was endorsed by Donald Trump back in March, and he was in part financially supported by NASCAR team owners such as Rick Hendrick, Richard Childress and Bill McAnally.

Theriault also received contributions from some of his prospective colleagues in the House, including Austin Scott, Mike Turner, Gus Bilirakis, Mariannette Miller-Meeks, Lisa McClain, Bob Latta, Nathaniel Moran and Tom Emmer. That's pretty much an All-Squish All-Star team. Or, more accurately, the Squish Team's triple-A minor league affiliate.

Anyone who can knock off the Golden Boy in November is OK with us now, but Soboleski was the true conservative in the race. He had comparatively little money and probably lesser name recognition, and Theriault thrashed him by 32 points (66.1% to 33.9%). We referenced the likelihood of that outcome at the end of a commentary which was posted three months ago.

One day after Theriault's resounding win, John Andrews (a member of the Maine House who served as Soboleski's campaign manager) blew a gasket, declaring:

    "I've just resigned my seat in the Maine State House of Representatives. I can't be a part of anything that supports Austin Theriault. Paris [Andrews' home town in Maine] voted for Theriault. That made up my mind. I'm sorry, but I'm done standing up for anything in this community. I'm officially retired from politics. This absolutely disgusts me."

Andrews' "resignation" was merely symbolic and utterly meaningless seeing as how the Maine legislature has already adjourned for the year and Andrews was not running for re-election anyway. He did not elaborate on what the real problem was here, but it's probably spelled T-r-u-m-p. However, like Soboleski, Andrews is also normally a conservative and his voting record backed up that description.

It is therefore possible that Trump wasn't the main point of contention. In every story about this 27,000 square-mile district, the liberal media makes sure to note that it was once the site of a "mass shooting"; Theriault is a supporter of the Second Amendment, which according to the media (and probably John Andrews) makes Theriault somehow personally responsible for that massacre.

Golden's financial advantages and his experience with manipulating the voters of the second district will be difficult to overcome, but the GOP has put this House seat at or near the top of its list of potential pickups, and for good reason. An R+6 district is likely to come to its senses sooner or later, and 2024 may be the year that happens.

Photo credit: New York Times

In the Senate primary in Nevada, Trump-anointed Sam Brown, a moderate Republican, breezed past conservative challenger Jeff Gunter. Gunter was appointed as Ambassador to Iceland by Trump, but the ex-President typically opted for the "electable" moderate in this race instead of the true conservative. Pre-primary polls had indicated a potentially close finish between Brown and Gunter, but the current figures show 59.8% for Brown and only 15.1% for runner-up Gunter.

This is Brown's second Senate run in two years; he finished second (by over 20 points) to Adam Laxalt in his 2022 bid to go to Washington. Laxalt went on to lose by less than 1% to incumbent liberal Democrat Catherine Cortez-Masto in the general election. Although the GOPe now demands complete unity behind Brown -- which is essential if he is to have any chance of defeating ultra-liberal Democrat Jacky Rosen in November -- Gunter for the time being is not willing to forgive and forget the nasty campaign waged by Brown and his establishment supporters.

Brown is absolutely a squish, which sadly may be the best we can do as far as a supposedly electable Republican in Nevada. He has a lot of money (but Rosen has all the money in the world) and all the right squishy endorsements, while his other primary opponents (Gunter and Jim Marchant) were backed by conservatives.

Brown's cabal cites Gunter's excessive conservatism and lack of name recognition as factors which would cause him to be defeated in November if he were the nominee. However the last poll taken in this race showed Rosen beating Brown by 14 points, "name recognition" and all; the last poll in which Gunter was included showed Rosen beating him by exactly the same amount, even though few people knew who he was. Winning the primary would have solved that little problem and helped him close the gap, while Brown will have to find some other excuse for his polling deficit.

This whole scenario, Trump endorsement and all, seems very similar to what happened in the PA Senate election in 2022 with "Electable Dr. Oz". There's no way that Eyepatch McCain 2.0 (Brown) can be as bad a candidate as Oz was, and Rosen couldn't beat a ham sandwich by 14 points in a general election, but....

Even if the GOP does close ranks behind Brown, this is still Nevada. As with Oz in PA, the likely upshot of all of this is that Brown's supporters will be able to console themselves on election night in November by claiming (obviously without proof) that Gunter would have lost to Rosen by even more. It should be close -- nowhere near a 14-point gap -- but the GOP's record in close elections in Nevada, where Democrats count the vast majority of the votes, isn't impressive.

Republican Joe Lombardo was allowed to win a close contest in 2022 because a Governor isn't nearly as important as a U.S. Senator and because Lombardo is a pliable squish presiding over a state with a nearly veto-proof Democrat legislature. Jim Marchant was not allowed to win a close election in 2022 because a Secretary of State is also more important than a Governor (Don't believe us? Then go ask George Soros.), and Marchant scares the hell out of the left with his vow to clean up vote fraud in one of the most corrupt states in the country.

We'll never know whether giving the voters "a choice (Gunter), not an echo (Brown)" would have won the Nevada Senate race in 2024, we'll only know that, barring a somewhat major upset, the "echo" did not do so. All good Nevadans -- including Gunter -- need to rally to Brown now (just like folks in PA held their noses and voted for Oz), regardless of how much of a squish he is, and see if what appears to be inevitable in November might be able to be altered. Standing on principle is nice, when possible, but Brown is the only option we have now.

Photo credit: Gateway Pundit

Speaking of squishy (or far worse) Senators: Lately we have been subjected to numerous articles in the "right-wing" media which have awarded Strange New Respect to drooling Pennsylvania Democrat John Fetterman. Fetterman, of course, is the combination of the characters of Lurch and Uncle Fester from the old Addams Family television show, and this cartoon character has been a U.S. Senator since defeating Electable Dr. Oz in 2022.

There's this from Townhall.com:

Red Pilled John Fetterman?, which starts out by comparing Fetterman to -- yes, really -- Ronald Reagan. It goes on, like all of these delusional screeds do, to echo Fetterman's claims that he is not a liberal, he is not woke, he's just a regular guy in a hoodie, etc.

Here's one from Breitbart:

Fetterman Rejects Progressive Label While Addressing Left-Wing Attacks

Golly, now he's under "attack" from the radicals in his party. A stroke, and now this? Poor guy.

Fetterman does concede that "eight years ago" he was in fact a "progressive", a label which he now rejects. He's not up for re-election until 2028, but apparently it's never too early to begin campaigning. One of the basic tenets of Democrat campaigns is trying to get ignorant voters to swallow whatever lies they are fed. That becomes easier with every repetition of the lie, and there's no reason for the non-liberal media to help the Democrats with their task.

The liberal puppetmasters, who send Lurch/Fester out there to parrot whatever script they've prepared for him, are rolling with laughter that people are buying this crap. Granted it is impressive that Fetterman can memorize even a simple script, what with his brain damage, and he wasn't any Mensa candidate even before the stroke.

He is all talk, and only talk.

It serves a purpose to have a "last sane Democrat" puppet to put on public display once in a while. The tactic goes back at least to Zig-Zag Zell Miller, through Joe Lieberman (on rare occasions) and then to grandstanding showboat Joe Manchin. Manchin is down to his last few months in office so they need a new one, preferably from a swing state. Michigan, Georgia, Arizona, Nevada, New Hampshire and Wisconsin had no remotely believable (as "sane") Democrat Senate options, so the job fell to Fetterman.

Fetterman is a total fraud with his "I ain't woke no mo'" garbage. The next Senate vote he casts which defies liberal orthodoxy in any way will be his first one and that's no exaggeration. Talk is cheap. Get back to us when he shows up Chuckie Schumer even once by casting a critical non-liberal vote on an important issue. In the meantime, Republican voters (and authors) need to stop being so gullible.


2024 House Senate Ohio South Carolina Nevada Maine Lurch / Uncle Fester

6/10/2024: [South Carolina] Who Are You, and What Have You Done With Nancy Mace? [RightDataUSA]

Three high-profile primaries in U.S. House districts will be held tomorrow in South Carolina. In solidly Republican CD-3 (Anderson and the northwest portion of the state), seven candidates are vying to replace 7-term conservative Jeff Duncan, who is retiring rather than face a campaign that would feature nasty (and unproven) allegations from his vindictive soon-to-be ex-wife. In solidly Republican CD-4 (Greenville/Spartanburg) Trump-supported incumbent William Timmons is facing conservative state legislator Adam Morgan, who is being boosted by outspoken conservative congressman Matt Gaetz of Florida. Timmons had no Democrat opposition in 2022 but he achieved only 52.7% in a four-way primary that year, and this one could be close too.

But the most interesting and important primary is taking place in CD-1 (Charleston and suburbs), where incumbent Nancy Mace is being opposed by a pair of foes. The race has attracted attention from major players in both wings of the GOP -- Donald Trump and Matt Gaetz support Mace; squishes like Newt Gingrich and vengeful ex-Speaker Kevin McCarthy support Catherine Templeton, who labels herself as a conservative (GOP challengers in right-leaning districts always attempt to appear conservative -- in the primary) and claims a tenuous connection to Donald Trump, in that the former President supposedly once "considered" her for a cabinet position.

Unlike CD-3 and CD-4, Mace's district is certainly not solidly Republican although for now it does tilt in that direction. As recently as 2018, the district elected Joe Cunningham, an extremely well-funded Democrat who squeaked his way into Congress as the result of intra-party squabbling and backstabbing within the GOP. This is the exact same thing certain liberal elements in the Republican party are aiming for in the 2024 campaign here, in hopes of attaining the same outcome -- the ousting of a Republican they despise -- regardless of whether it is by another Republican or by a Democrat.

This time, Mace is the candidate they despise. Which is the #1 reason that the good people of her district should vote for her.

The Charleston-based district has been quite volatile politically in recent years. When the voters of this district sent Republican Mark Sanford back to Congress for a second stint in a 2013 special election, it appeared that they had forgiven him for his erratic behavior including (but not limited to) his Kennedy-esque extramarital affairs, his sudden unexplained disappearance while Governor in 2009, and his surprising reappearance in Argentina several days later.

Sanford compiled a generally conservative record throughout most of that second stint in the House. In 2018 however, Sanford split with President Trump and ran shrieking to the left, opposing Trump on nearly 50% of his House votes that year.

Trump endorsed Katie Arrington, a mostly moderate state legislator, in the 2018 GOP primary against Sanford. Arrington won that primary by the margin of 50.6% to 46.5%, narrowly averting a runoff. In the 2018 general election, Cunningham and the Democrats outstpent Arrington by 50%, while the GOP establishment abandoned Arrington when they weren't busy knifing her in the back; she had to finance a significant portion of her own campaign. Arrington lost by just over 1% in November.

Arrington would be heard from again, but not in 2020 when the Republicans united behind Nancy Mace. Mace, who had compiled a moderate-to-slightly-conservative record during her three years in the SC state House, recaptured CD-1 for the Republicans by about the same narrow margin which Arrington had lost it two years earlier. The Democrats spent over $7 million trying to keep Cunningham in office, plus another $6 million in "independent" expenditures opposing Mace. But the GOP fought back and was able to compete on almost equal financial footing in the 2020 campaign. Mace evicted Cunningham from the House even as Trump's margin in CD-1 was falling from 13% in 2016 to only 6% in 2020.

CD-1 was redistricted to be slightly more Republican after 2020, a pertinent factor which will be addressed below.

Mace was no conservative during her first three years in Congress, and she became a self-appointed poster child for her wing of the GOP. She regularly ran to the liberal media and criticized her conservative colleagues, and others on the right, for their attacks on "RINOs" and she warned that such attacks would severely damage the party at the polls.

Mace, who according to her bio played a substantial role in the Trump campaign in 2016 in South Carolina, eventually broke with the former President. It didn't help matters when she said Trump was "accountable" for the so-called "attack" on the U.S. Capitol building on January 6, 2021.

In the 2022 Republican primary, Trump and the conservatives threw their weight behind Arrington, who was making her second bid for the CD-1 seat. The right did claim a scalp in the 2022 South Carolina primary, that of Trump impeachment RINO Tom Rice in CD-7, but Mace survived without a runoff when Arrington came up several points short. Democrats only tepidly contested this seat in November of 2022, and Mace easily won the R+7 district.

As recently as last year Mace was still being her usual irritating moderate self.... and then something odd happened.

Photo credit: J. Scott Applewhite / Associated Press

In October of 2023 Mace was part of a small cabal of GOP representatives who voted to remove Assistant Democrat Kevin McCarthy as Speaker. Who knew at the time that Mike "Pence" Johnson would be just as craven and cowardly?

McCarthy then went berserk and vowed to destroy his conservative enemies, of which six remain in the House: Matt Gaetz, Andy Biggs, Bob Good, Eli Crane, Tim Burchett, and Mace. As is well known by now, the petulant McCarthy later resigned from Congress, took his binky -- and his huge bundle of campaign cash -- and slinked home. As of the last financial reports, the spiteful California crybully still has raised more money than any House Republican, even though McCarthy himself is not running for office; that money will finance McCarthy's "Revenge Tour" in an attempt to purge the House of as many conservatives as possible.

In 2024, Mace's voting record in the House has been 100% conservative. Not 75%, not 85%, not even 99% -- 100 percent. She has earned the forgiveness of Donald Trump and regained his support; Trump gave her his blessing in March after Mace had endorsed Trump several weeks earlier.

Many voters may still be reluctant to support Mace despite:

  • Her recent conversion to righteous conservatism
  • Trump's endorsement
  • Her critical role in dethroning Squish McCarthy
  • The fact that the liberal wing of the GOP now detests her

Nobody is suggesting that a politician who sticks her finger into the wind and changes course accordingly is to be respected or trusted. But that's not what Nancy Mace did here, opinions of the haters notwithstanding.

We mentioned redistricting earlier in this commentary. For all of 2023 and most of 2024 there was every reason to believe that Mace's district would be altered again and moved sharply to the left, in a racist effort to favor Democrats. Her move to the right under those circumstances would hardly constitute "blowing with the wind". If anything, in order to be re-elected she would need to run away from anything resembling conservatism in order to attract Democrat votes.

Only a few short weeks ago did Mace get a reprieve. On May 23 the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the arguments of the professional racists at the NAACP. They ruled that South Carolina does not need to redistrict again and gerrymander Mace's congressional district to make it solidly Democrat.

We not only need more conservatives in Congress, we need more conservative fighters. Mace has always been aggressive, and now that she is finally fighting the GOOD fight, we strongly support her re-election bid and all conservatives should do so as well.

Addendum: Mace's main financial opposition -- to the tune of 2 million dollars for the May 11 primary alone -- is something called "South Carolina Patriots PAC" which just sprung into existence a few months ago for the express purpose of torpedoing Mace. It has contributed to no other races in the state, or anywhere else. It's being funded by McCarthy's millionaire allies in order to give the coward some "plausible deniability". McCarthy has apparently only contributed a token amount of the money he bilked his own contributors out of, for the alleged purpose of financing his own re-election which of course isn't happening.

If you like dark-money GOP establishment RINO puppets, you'll love Catherine Templeton.


2024 House South Carolina People DO Change

6/6/2024: Incumbent House Democrats: Running Scared or Just Faking Toward the Center? [RightDataUSA]

It's both, but mainly the latter.

A few months ago we published some data pertaining to Party Unity votes in the U.S. House of Representatives for 2023. A "Party Unity" vote is one in which the parties were split, with a majority of Democrats unified in opposition to a majority of similarly determined Republicans.

Nearly all important votes in the House fit that description. Democrats normally march in just about perfect goosestep with the wishes of their party leadership; most (but hardly all) Republicans do the right thing and vote the way we would want them to.

Here is one example among many, a vote from last year. It was on a bill called the "Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act", which would prevent male transvestites from participating in female sports. Every Democrat who voted was against that bill; every Republican who voted was in favor. In 2023, there were 463 Party Unity votes in the House.

The list we published highlighted the representatives who were the most inclined to abandon their party on a Party Unity vote. Not surprisingly, the names were almost entirely those of liberal/moderate Republicans, mostly from the Northeast or California, who helped the Democrats as often as they dared to. Many of these liberals would claim to have practical reasons for running to the left as often as they do, because they represent marginal districts and their re-election chances would be diminished if they appear to be too conservative.

Now we are in an election year, and even though most voters don't have any clue who their representative in Congress is until they see an election ballot -- and they certainly have no idea how that congressman votes -- incumbents are wary of their congressional voting record being used against them in the campaign, and so they often try to "moderate" their record to avoid accusations of extremism.

The vast majority of the time, it is Republicans who must be the most wary and who do the most moderating. The liberal media, and of course Democrat candidates and RINOs who are running to an incumbent's left in a primary, will gladly use whatever ammunition is available against a conservative. It is a rare case that a liberal Democrat -- even in the most marginal of districts -- must concern herself even slightly about charges of being "too liberal".

That is true in nearly all election years. But apparently not 2024.

Our analysis of congressional voting data from Voteview which runs through May 23 shows that numerous Democrats are the ones who are panicking and running hysterically towards the center, while even the squishiest House Republicans suddenly have grown at least a small amount of backbone and are standing united most of the time. This behavior, on both sides, is unprecedented in recent years.

With all of these "moderate" Democrats voting alongside the solid Republican majority so frequently, why isn't more conservative legislation becoming law?

There are at least two reasons. First, these Democrat defections are carefully metered by the party leadership. A certain group of panicky Democrats is permitted to leave the plantation on a particular vote, then a different group is given temporary freedom on a subsequent vote, and so on. No specific bill which is repugnant to liberals has any landslide vote in favor of it. Secondly, even if one does slip past them in the House, the Democrats still have their firewall in the Senate where any conservative bill is D.O.A. Despite only 49 actual Democrats plus two alleged independents, Angus King & Kyrsten Sinema, they effectively have at least 53 fairly solid votes (see below) against any legislation that could be remotely described as conservative.

So these center-fakes are basically a no-risk venture from the perspective of the liberal Democrat House leadership, and there is a significant benefit to playing the voting equivalent of Three-Card Monte: the supposedly endangered House Democrats get vital "moderate cred" for these carefully choreographed votes, which they can use to deflect accusations of ultra-liberalism that may arise on the campaign trail.

No vulnerable Democrat wants to hear her Republican opponent declare "She voted with Hakeem Jeffries 94% of the time!" during a debate or at any other time during a campaign. These tactical departures from lockstep Democrat voting are meant to defuse such allegations and to create the illusion of independence from the unpopular liberal leadership.

In 2024 five Democrats have been voting nearly as much (over 40%) with Republicans on Party Unity votes than they vote with their own party. Another 22 Democrats have been allowed to leave the plantation at least 25% of the time. Twenty-five percent may not sound like a lot, but for Democrats in recent years it is a ton. In 2023 only one Democrat (Jared Golden) rather than 27 reached that threshold of permissible disobedience.

In 2022, the last time these people had to face the voters, Democrats were as united as ever with not even one of them dissenting from party orthodoxy as much as 20% of the time. In 2024, fully 48 Democrats have exceeded that figure so far. The fact that they feel the need to fake to the center so often is an indication that panic is setting in.

The column titled "% GOP" in the table below is the percentage of the time so far in 2024 that the Democrat representative has voted with the Republicans on Party Unity votes. Freshmen are shown in italics; the first re-election bid is normally the toughest.

District% GOPCook PVI
Marie G. PerezWA-348%R+5
Mary PeltolaAK At-Large44%R+8
Henry CuellarTX-2842%D+1
Don DavisNC-141%R+1
Jared GoldenME-240%R+6
Vicente GonzalezTX-3435%D+9
Yadira CaraveoCO-832%even
Angie CraigMN-232%D+1
Josh HarderCA-929%D+5
Jared MoskowitzFL-2329%D+5
Josh GottheimerNJ-528%D+4
Hilary ScholtenMI-328%D+1
Susie LeeNV-328%D+1
Eric SorensenIL-1728%D+2
Steven HorsfordNV-427%D+3
Colin AllredTX-3227%D+14
Greg LandsmanOH-127%D+2
Wiley NickelNC-1327%R+11
Kim SchrierWA-827%D+1
Gabriel VasquezNM-226%D+1
Greg StantonAZ-426%D+2
Marcy KapturOH-926%R+3
Nikki BudzinskiIL-1326%D+3
Chris PappasNH-126%even
Pat RyanNY-1825%D+1
Frank MrvanIN-125%D+3
Chrissy HoulihanPA-625%D+5

  • Nickel is not seeking re-election; Allred is running for U.S. Senate and another couple of Democrats who are not listed above (because they crossed party lines in only 24% of their votes) are also not seeking re-election to the House and are instead running for statewide office in either 2024 (Jeff Jackson, NC-14) or 2025 (Abby Spanbarger, VA-7).

  • Peltola and Ryan were both first elected in 2022 and are therefore freshmen, but they initially won special elections and were re-elected once already, in November of 2022.

  • Every one of these Democrats who are running for re-election this year are very well funded; some of them are not particularly endangered at all (Houlihan for sure, probably also Mrvan, Budzinski and some others).

  • Cuellar was first elected in 2004 and was formerly thought of as a conservative Democrat -- which he sort of was, for one term. He has spent most of the past several years as a reliable leftist, but has lurched back toward the center in 2024. Cuellar's ethical/legal troubles may have something to do with him trying to salvage his former reputation as a non-liberal; a corrupt centrist (even a fake centrist) has a better chance in TX-28 than a corrupt liberal would. If Cuellar were a Republican, he'd have been expelled by now.

Photo credit: ABC News

There is no such phenomena in the Senate of Democrats feeling the need to fake to the center. The most (allegedly) endangered Senate Democrats are remaining on the far left, and not even glancing toward the center much less moving in that direction. Their scores on Party Unity votes:

Photo credit: womenzmag.com

On the other hand, the usual Republican suspects -- who are not even up for re-election this year so we're stuck with them -- are still cheerfully voting with the Democrats and against their own party a significant portion of the time:

Even if the Republicans regain numerical control of the Senate as a result of November's elections (they need only a Trump win or one additional victory besides West Virginia in a Senate race), who can possibly believe the GOP will have actual control with traitors like Collins and Murkowski in their ranks? If necessary, one or both of those desiccated crones may bolt the party and claim to be Independent in order to stop Republicans from having even numerical control.

Even the execrable Mitt Romney, who is retiring after 2024 and undoubtedly wishes to end his political career in a blaze of anti-conservative glory, only votes with the Democrats 24% of the time so far this year.

The Democrat analog to Romney is Joe Manchin, who recently announced his departure from the Democrat party to become an independent. Like Romney and fellow "independent" Kyrsten Sinema, Manchin is never going to face the voters of his state again and can therefore follow his conscience from here on out. Be that as it may, Manchin's conscience is still somewhere around 75% liberal, and he still has to answer to the party masters who will not appreciate his defection on any bills which are truly important to them.

The comparison of Manchin to Romney is not completely appropriate though both enjoy the notoriety they sometimes receive for being a thorn in the side of their respective parties. Manchin, unlike Romney, is not a regular visitor to liberal media opinion programs (sometimes disguised as "news") to trash his own party whenever possible. Romney's propaganda value to the left is far greater than his mere voting record in the Senate; Manchin is also a whore for publicity, but his damage to the Democrat party has always been minimal and that's not going to change despite the fact that he has altered his party label for his final few months in office.

Conclusion: Although House Democrats appear to be running scared it's likely just so much political theater. Nearly all of the most vulnerable ones still have sizable money, organizational and of course media advantages over their GOP challengers. On the flip side, the numerous vulnerable Republican House incumbents may be sticking together in terms of votes in Congress, but their chances for re-election will be determined more by money and voter turnout and factors which affect that (such as election "integrity") than those votes in the House. In many instances, that's not a happy prospect.


2024 House Scared Democrats? Fakers

5/16/2024: Mid-May Primary Wrap-Up [RightDataUSA]

Photo credit: Mike Braun For Indiana

In the state of Indiana on May 7, the Republican primaries all went as expected although one outcome was successfully influenced by a considerable amount of out-of-state money being spent by single-issue groups in order to defeat a certain GOP candidate.

In the high-profile gubernatorial primary, moderate-conservative U.S. Senator Mike Braun easily defeated a collection of viable opponents; these included current Lieutenant Governor Suzanne Crouch, state Commerce Secretary Brad Chambers and businessman Eric Doden. In the weeks before the primary, the liberal media frequently cried about how horribly conservative all of these candidates were, leaving the impression for the good citizens of Indiana that any of them would make a fine Governor. Braun won with 39.5% of the vote in the 6-candidate field, with Crouch coming in a distant second with 21.7%. Braun won every county but three.

Braun's opponent in November is virulent Trump-hater Jennifer McCormick. McCormick was once elected -- as a Republican -- in a fluke in 2016, happily riding the coattails of the President she hates to an upset win over the incumbent Superintendent of Public Instruction in Indiana; the office was then abolished by the state legislature in 2019. McCormick switched parties in 2021 and has become the consummate liberal Democrat, attempting to appeal to voters on the basis of favoring unrestricted abortions, radical environmentalism, and of course more taxpayer money for left-wing teachers' unions. McCormick was unopposed in the Democrat primary. She starts the general election campaign well behind in the polls; she will finish the campaign there too.

Squishy state legislators won GOP primaries in CD-1 and CD-8. CD-1 (Gary, Hammond, Michigan City, most of LaPorte) hardly matters because the incumbent Democrat is easily going to win again in November.

Photo credit: AIPAC

In CD-8, ex-Congressman John Hostettler was trying to reclaim the seat he lost 18 years ago. Hostettler wasn't exactly a paragon of arch-conservatism during his time in Washington, but he was OK and he'd be better than state Senator Mark Messmer who at one time was a conservative but is now a total squish. Hostettler was branded as "anti-Jewish" and was opposed by the extremely wealthy Israel Lobby (groups such as the "Republican Jewish Coalition" and "United Democracy Project"). Over $2 million of their money went into this single U.S. House primary with the goal of electing the more liberal Republican. Messmer won with nearly 40% of the vote while Hostettler (who was endorsed by Rand Paul and Charlie Kirk) came up just short of 20% in the field of eight. Money talks, and in this contest it absolutely shrieked. One wonders just how much these particular special interest groups are spending to oust anti-Israel Democrats from Congress; there aren't any shortage of those, but these groups seem to be giving them a free pass.

In CD-5, incumbent moderate Victoria Spartz lately hasn't been too bad on issues aside from ones related to Ukraine. She alone in the U.S. House at least has a personal reason to keep funneling billions of dollars of U.S. taxpayer money to that thoroughly corrupt rathole -- she is from the Ukraine. Spartz had initially decided not to run for re-election this year, and was probably lured back out of GOPe fear that a true conservative would win her district. And one would have, too. Spartz narrowly prevailed over conservative state House member Chuck Goodrich by just 6% (39% to 33%). Max Engling came in third, taking 10% of the conservative vote away from Goodrich, more than enough to alter the outcome. There were 6 lesser candidates seeking the nomination as well.

Jim Baird in CD-4 is an elderly RINO joke but Trump bypassed conservative challenger Charles Bookwalter and endorsed the incumbent since Baird was 98% certain to win the primary based on name recognition and a mere 7:1 advantage in money. Nevermind that the actual conservative would have been 98% certain to win in November too seeing as how Democrats don't even bother with this district. Trump rarely, if ever, passes up a safe RINO incumbent, and at least Baird didn't vote for Trump's impeachment (which is probably all that mattered in this case).

The CD-3 seat is open in 2024 because incumbent Jim Banks is running for the Senate; he was unopposed in the primary and will win easily in November, giving Indiana an actual conservative there alongside his moderate-liberal GOP colleague Todd Young. Conservative ex-congressman Marlin Stutzman (last elected in 2014) attempted to reclaim his old seat, and succeeded in this hotly-contested primary. Four different candidates won at least one county in this northeastern Indiana district which includes Fort Wayne. Conservative Tim Smith was the leading challenger to Stutzman, taking 22.6% to the winner's 24.2%. Stutzman had numerous endorsements from current and former congressmen. Moderates Wendy Davis and state Senator Andy Zay came home third and fourth, combining for over 35% of the vote. Grant Bucher was fifth at 10.3% but he actually won two small counties. Stutzman is heavily favored to return to Congress in November after he defeats unknown and unfunded liberal Kiley Adolph, who predictably won the Democrat primary on the basis of being a female who was running against a male.

In Maryland on May 14, liberal women swept the Democrat primaries for open seats in the U.S. Senate and House districts 3 and 6. We've already profiled the Senate contest, and as far as House races only the primary in CD-6 was of any significant interest to Republicans; it's their one slim chance of picking up a Democrat-held House seat in Maryland, where liberals currently occupy 7 of the 8 districts thanks in at least a couple of cases to hyper-partisan Democrat gerrymandering. CD-6 is the most gerrymandered of them all.

On Tuesday in that district, 2022 gubernatorial candidate/sacrificial lamb Dan Cox ran against perennial candidate Neil Parrott in the GOP primary. Both are conservatives. Parrott was victorious by 47% to 30%, and this will be his third consecutive try to take the 6th district. He'll be facing the wife of former congressman John Delaney, an ultra-liberal who won three terms here (2012, 2014, 2016) due solely to the harsh gerrymander implemented by the veto-proof Democrat legislature in 2011.

When the district maps were redrawn that year, CD-6 was shifted a whopping 16 points to the left by adding execrable areas of Montgomery County to the nice counties in the panhandle west of Frederick. The district was moved slightly back towards the center (7 points) in 2021. Still, Trump lost the redistricted area in 2020 by almost 10 points (instead of the 23 points by which he lost in CD-6 as it stood prior to redistricting). As of 2022, Democrats still have a 6.5% edge in voter registrations here, and it appears that "independents" regularly break left too. The Cook PVI for CD-6 claims it's only D+2, which seems like a crock given recent presidential & House election results. Furthermore, Parrott's chances in the general election are hardly enhanced by the sizable financial advantage which the liberal feminist Democrat has here. Given that this open district is not totally a lost cause, the RNC may eventually decide to toss a few dollars in Parrott's direction.

Photo credit: bacon.house.gov

Nebraska: the state-level GOP organization which, according to surely unbiased media reports, "was taken over by those loyal to former President Donald Trump during a contentious state convention" -- that happened back in 2022 -- decided to oppose (or ignore) all 5 of the Republican incumbents who were running for federal office. This is quite good since pretty much all 5 incumbents are squishes, but unfortunately the tactic proved to be utterly ineffective. For one thing, actions (especially $$$) speak far louder than words, and these were only words; the conservative challengers collectively had about $1.50 to work with here. Also, making the announcement regarding endorsements just moments before the voters had to head to the polls was a great way to make sure that as few people as possible got the message.

Nebraska has two Senate elections this year, one of which was necessitated when Trump-hater Ben Sasse fled to Florida and was replaced by Pete Ricketts, who was appointed by Governor Jim Pillen in January, 2023. The other Senator, Deb Fischer, is also up this year.

There are also 3 incumbents who are running for re-election to the House: Mike Flood in CD-1, Don Bacon in CD-2 and Adrian Smith in CD-3. Here are the lifetime American Conservative Union (ACU) ratings for these guys:

  • Senator Pete Ricketts: 66% (1 year)
  • Senator Deb Fischer: 81% (11 years)
  • Rep. Mike Flood: 72% (2 years)
  • Rep. Don Bacon: 64% (7 years)
  • Rep. Adrian Smith: 85% (17 years)

The NEGOP made no endorsement in the races involving Fischer and Flood, and they endorsed challengers to Ricketts, Bacon and Smith. All 5 incumbents did face primary opposition -- such as it was.

Fischer won on Tuesday with 80% and Ricketts had 79%. Their challengers, official party support and all, didn't even rise to the "nuisance" level. Flood received 82% in his congressional primary, Smith 74% and Bacon 62%. Don Bacon enjoys his role as a rabidly anti-conservative Republican who helps the Democrats on most important issues, and he richly deserved a challenge. His challenge will come not from some destitute conservative Republican in the primary, but instead from a greasy, well-funded liberal Democrat in the general election. Far-left state Senator Tony Vargas (2023 ACU rating: 7%), who nearly defeated Bacon in 2022 is back for another crack at him and carries with him a bank account that is chock full of Democrat dollars.

The district which Bacon represents contains the city of Omaha and some of its suburbs. Omaha may not rank down there with the likes of East St. Louis, Newark, the Bronx, Detroit and similar hell-holes, but it is far from being a good area. The suburban territory is the only thing keeping Republicans afloat here -- barely. Bacon, even as far to the left as he is, is not nearly liberal enough to suit about half of the voters in CD-2. His winning margins have been 1.2% against incumbent Brad Ashford in 2016; 2.0% and 4.6% against radical leftist Democrat Kara Eastman in 2018 and 2020 (a comparatively sane liberal Democrat would have likely won in 2018, but Ashford lost the primary); and 2.6% against Vargas in 2022.

Donald Trump narrowly carried this district in 2016, by just 2.2%, and he lost it in 2020 by 6.5% (!). That loss was significant because Nebraska awards electoral votes by congressional district, and Biden was able to get an unlikely vote from Nebraska (Trump got the other 4).

CD-2 was nearly unchanged in the most recent redistricting (2021), despite the ease with which that task could have been accomplished. But the Stupid Party, which controls the legislature and the redistricting process, deliberately opted not to harm the Democrats in any way. If Trump loses in 2024 by this one electoral vote, be sure to thank cowardly Nebraska Republican legislators.

So for no good reason at all the district remains marginal; Charlie Cook rates it as dead even.

In a totally marginal district such as this, a chump like Don Bacon may be the best we can do since a 60% liberal (R) is better than a 100% liberal (D). These are districts where we must usually accept a compromise; however in other places we can certainly do better -- especially in a state like Nebraska. Politicians like Ricketts, Flood and Fischer are clearly not the best we can do.

Keep in mind that what we conservatives think is "better" is terrifying and loathsome to the GOP establishment. Not because they might lose, but because they might win. Which brings us to:

Photo credit: National Review

West Virginia, where energetic conservative Senate candidate Alex Mooney was swamped by doddering moderate Governor Jim Justice in Tuesday's Senate primary as was expected. "Terrifying and loathsome" is pretty much how the GOPe would describe Mooney. We'd describe him as "conservative". The GOPe would agree, and that's their main problem with the 5-term congressman.

Mooney was the first prominent Republican to enter the race against vulnerable Democrat incumbent Joe Manchin, who later tucked his tail between his legs, chose not to run for re-election and went on to briefly pretend that he could become President (or at least stop Donald Trump from being President, which is the most important thing to liberals and fake centrists).

The GOPe, namely Mitch McConnell and Steve Daines (his little toady who runs the NRSC) flew into a panic and dragged Governor Justice into the race by appealing to his ego, thus creating a potentially divisive primary, which is the kind of thing they claim to abhor -- when it suits them.

The latest results show Justice with 61.8% of the vote, while Mooney received 26.5%. Five others collected approximately 12%. With nothing to vote for on the Democrat side, since electable Democrats are all but extinct in the Mountain State (some, like Jim Justice, now label themselves as Republicans), numerous Democrats undoubtedly crossed over and voted in the Republican primary.

Mooney had the support and the endorsements of prominent conservatives like Rand Paul, Mike Lee, Ted Cruz and ex-Senator Jim DeMint; Justice had some semi-conservative endorsements (Marsha Blackburn, Tom Cotton), some moderate-liberal endorsements (Mitch McConnell, Shelley Capito [whose politician-son endorsed Mooney], Lindsey Graham) and some misguided endorsements from alleged conservatives (Donald Trump).

In the end, Justice also had the votes. West Virginia is now a very solidly Republican state; like many others which fit that description, it is in no way a solidly conservative state.

It's fashionable for liberal elitists to refer to West Virginians using words like "hillbilly" and "inbred" because, to them, hatred of White people is always acceptable. Though we reject their racism, it must be conceded that West Virginia politics does sometimes have a certain inbred-type quality to it:

In the CD-1 Republican primary, it was incumbent Carol Miller vs. former J6 political prisoner ("rioter", in biased liberal media parlance) Derrick Evans, age 39, who was briefly a state legislator before being forced to vacate the premises after his politically-motivated conviction in 2021. Miller, who won this primary with 63% of the vote, is a geriatric 73-year-old moderate currently in her third term in the House. She is the daughter of former conservative Ohio congressman Samuel Devine who was in Congress from 1959-1982. Miller's son, a car dealer by trade, was looking to extend the family's political dynasty by becoming Governor. However Chris Miller finished in third place in the 2024 GOP primary with about 20% of the vote and his political career is likely stillborn.

Arch Moore, a moderate Republican like Jim Justice and Carol Miller, many moons ago had a long and legendary political career including 6 terms in the U.S. House and two distinct stints as Governor (he ran 5 times and won 3). Moore was first elected to office in 1952 and last ran in 1988 when he lost his bid for a fourth term as Governor.

His daughter, Shelley Moore Capito, is a moderate-liberal Senate Republican and has been in Congress for nearly a quarter-century since being first elected to the House in 2000 in an upset victory over a megabucks Democrat trial lawyer who outspent her by a 6:1 margin. Justice's imminent elevation to the Senate in November will ensure that this solidly Republican state has two Republicans -- but no conservatives -- in that body for the first time since 1958. The last time West Virginia had two elected (as opposed to appointed) Republicans in the U.S. Senate was 93 years ago.

Capito's son, former state legislator Moore Capito, ran for Governor this year and came in second to state Attorney General and former Senate candidate Patrick Morrisey in the GOP primary. The younger Capito compiled a somewhat conservative record as a member of the state House of Delegates from 2016-2023.

Shelley Capito's nephew, state Treasurer Riley Moore (the true conservative politician in the family), won the 5-way primary to replace Alex Mooney in the U.S. House. After he wins the general election easily in November, it remains to be seen whether his voting record will be as conservative as expected. There's a good chance that he will at least start out that way, as many freshmen GOP legislators do.


2024 Indiana Nebraska West Virginia Maryland

5/15/2024: [Maryland] Hogan Wins Senate Primary Easily; Next Race Will Be His Toughest [RightDataUSA]

Photo credit: AP Photo/Susan Walsh

As expected, there was no drama in the Republican Senate primary, where former Governor Larry Hogan won the low-turnout contest by over 30 percentage points. The stakes were higher on the Democrat side, where ultra-liberal billionaire congressman David Trone, who represents western Maryland, faced ultra-liberal county executive Angela Alsobrooks, who hails from the deep, dark jungle of Prince George's County.

Trone got started in politics by taking advantage of his massive wealth and the heavy partisan Democrat gerrymander in Maryland's 6th district to purchase (at a cost of over $17 million) a seat in Congress in the anti-Republican year of 2018, and he held it by decreasing margins in the next two elections. The 96% liberal Trone tries to portray himself as a moderate every couple of years during his campaigns, and his idea of "fundraising" is to whip out his checkbook and calmly write a check for $10,000,000 or so to his campaign treasury.

In this Senate primary however, Trone really was the "moderate" candidate. But as a White male running against a black female, he didn't check any of the politically correct boxes which are so important in nearly all Democrat primary elections, and so he never really had a chance. Trone lost by approximately 54% to 42%, in what Republican strategists have classified as a nasty and divisive primary which they hope will have lasting effects through November; it rarely happens that way on the left, and surely won't be allowed in an election as critical as this one.

The backgrounds of the two candidates were not nearly as similar as their comparable liberal ideologies. Even as a rich guy, Trone is not simply a Democrat trust-fund baby. He became a billionaire by founding a successful business from scratch; at one time he really was a political moderate and even donated to GOP candidates. Alsobrooks, on the other hand, has always been on the extreme left and has spent nearly her entire career in the affirmative-action public sector, at the nexus of government and politics.

Photo credit: wamu.org

Hogan, from the staunch liberal wing of the Republican party, was extremely popular in Maryland during his two terms as Governor. Democrats were as thoroughly satisfied with Hogan as Republicans were, and they made only the most token effort to oppose his re-election bid in 2018. At his election-night victory party that year, Hogan predictably gloated about how his liberalism (as opposed to Democrat apathy) had enabled him to overcome 2018's anti-Trump "blue wave". He was at least partially correct.

Democrats had veto-proof majorities or very close to it in both houses of the Maryland legislature during Hogan's entire 8 years in office, and under those conditions -- see also Vermont and Massachusetts in recent years -- liberals often have no objection to an impotent figurehead Republican as Governor, if for no other reason than to have some handy Republican to take the blame from the media and the voters when Democrat legislative policies prove to be unpopular and damaging. Hogan's gubernatorial "success" notwithstanding, a U.S. Senate seat is a far more important prize than a governorship, and Democrats damn sure aren't going to show any apathy this time around.

The liberal media has been dutifully reminding folks in Maryland that Hogan is very much an "anti-Trump" Republican. Obviously they do this not to boost Hogan in the eyes of other Trump-hating liberals; instead it is a totally transparent attempt to damage Hogan with the solid GOP base -- those who support Trump. They're probably succeeding to some extent. Hogan's win in the Senate primary yesterday was far from unanimous, with 81-year-old frequent (but hopeless) candidate Robin Ficker surprisingly outraising and outspending Hogan by a substantial margin and campaigning solidly to Hogan's right, which isn't exactly difficult. Ficker received only 30% of the Republican vote. That's still 30% who voted against Hogan. Five fringe candidates combined to take another 8% of the vote.

General election polls regarding the Senate race in Maryland have been varied but are trending to the left lately even during the supposedly acrimonious Democrat primary. The polls started out by claiming that Governor Hogan was in the lead, however surveys taken this month have shown him with a considerable deficit against either potential Democrat nominee. The recent results are hardly surprising, given that Maryland is a state in which Democrats + liberal-leaning "independents" comprise two-thirds of the electorate, if not more.

As the general election campaign unfolds, it remains to be seen whether the Democrats will bother to campaign on issues of actual concern to the majority of voters, or if they'll merely stick to appeals to racism (it seems to have worked in their primary) and -- of course -- "aborshun, aborshun, aborshun!" Hogan violates liberal orthodoxy by not being in favor of 100% unlimited taxpayer-funded abortion on demand. Even without looking at future polls, you will be able to determine the likely outcome of this race just by observing the evolution of the prominent campaign topics and the candidates' positions on the issues.

When you see Hogan abandoning what few non-liberal positions he holds in order to run shrieking hysterically to the left, while Alsobrooks makes absolutely no pretense at moderation, that will tell you everything you need to know about how November is going to go in Maryland. OTOH, if you see the Democrats in a panic and feeling the need to fake towards the center, then things may be quite interesting here (don't hold your breath). With West Virginia's Senate seat certain to flip to the GOP, and potential if not actually probable pickups in Ohio and Montana and perhaps some other pipe-dreams if a 1994-style "red" wave occurs, the Democrats cannot afford to lose a seat in an utterly safe state like Maryland.

It's highly likely that they won't lose it.

In their desperation for continued liberal Senate control, the professional prognosticators (most of whom should themselves be rated as "Lean Democrat" or "Likely Democrat") are keeping this race pretty solidly in the D column for November. You should too, but it's still a long way to November.

[May 21 update: It sure didn't take long for what we predicted three paragraphs ago to come true. "Maryland Republican Senate Candidate Larry Hogan Vows to Codify Roe Protections". Pandering never works for Republicans. It gains no votes from the left and loses votes on the right, which seems like an odd way to run a campaign -- if you're trying to win.]


2024 Senate Maryland Hogan Competitive or pipe dream?

4/24/2024: [Pennsylvania] 2024 Primary Election Recap [RightDataUSA]

Here is a review of everything important which happened in the Pennsylvania primaries yesterday.


D votes (presidential): about 991,000
R votes (presidential): about 944,000

People on the right who habitually search for something to be disappointed about are concerned regarding the supposedly low GOP turnout. But based on current registration figures, the percentages are:

D turnout: 25.4%
R turnout: 27.0%

The races at the top of the ballot (President, Senator) featured essentially unopposed candidates for both parties, and there was little to vote for even at the U.S. House level. Since there was basically nothing contested for the GOP anywhere, what reason would there have been for sky-high turnout on that side? Democrats had some things to vote for -- a couple of statewide offices and a couple of U.S. House races.

Photo credit: Philadelphia Inquirer / Patel campaign

The highest-profile Democrat primary in PA took place in the Democrat-gerrymandered 12th congressional district, where terrorist-supporting liberal racist Summer Lee was challenged by a slightly less liberal racist Democrat named Bhavini Patel. Lee didn't bother to campaign much at all (and now we know why) but Patel did. Aside from a minor disagreement on the subject of Israel, Patel tried to stress to her potential primary voters that she was just as hate-filled toward all the "right" things as Lee is. Despite her somnambulant campaign, Lee still outspent Patel by nearly 3:1 according to FEC data from early April, and won by about 20 points.

Months ago when Lee proudly displayed her anti-Semitism by supporting the Hamas terrorists, we considered the impact that her hate might have on this primary election. CD-12 has a substantial Jewish community which did temporarily swing to the right in November of 2023 in the local Allegheny County elections even though Lee herself had nothing directly to do with that movement. That community's financial weight is far more substantial than its voting weight, but there's no evidence that they are suddenly steering their geld to the GOP. Lee only narrowly lost Pittsburgh's heavily-Jewish 14th Ward yesterday (and will apparently win it easily in November), reflecting the fact that she still has considerable support among the more atheistic, secular, ultra-liberal, self-loathing sector of that community. The remainder of the 14th Ward opted for the lesser of the two evils.

Any incumbent who prevails by less than about 70% in a primary election is normally considered vulnerable, depending of course on the composition of the district (Lee barely attained 60%). The CD-12 result in November will probably be closer than many expect but whatever hope yesterday's outcome is generating is highly likely to be false hope. Democrats still outnumber Republicans here by more than a 2:1 ratio and the vastly underfunded Republican in the race, James Hayes, will still probably lose by a considerable amount.

Hayes is a moderate conservative -- a 100% conservative would have a 0% chance of winning this district -- but his campaign treasury contains barely enough to pay for a few yard signs, nevermind expensive media buys. Unless there is some clear evidence in the internal polling that Hayes stands any chance of coming within even 10 points of Lee in November -- which is unlikely -- the RNC is going to spend its limited resources elsewhere, mainly trying to play defense for (at least) a couple dozen vulnerable GOP incumbents. Next up is one of those districts where they are frantically trying to play defense. Or at least they should be:

Photo credit: Bill Kalina, The York Dispatch

That is Pennsylvania's 10th congressional district -- the reprehensible shithole of Harrisburg, the city of York which isn't a whole lot better, and formerly-nice but rapidly deteriorating Cumberland County in between -- where liberal candidates were crawling over each other in their attempt to be "king of the hill" in the Democrat primary and have the honor of taking on embattled conservative Scott Perry in November.

CD-10 contains enough good suburban and rural territory that it counterbalances the Harrisburg and York ghetto vote and the liberal college punkie vote in Carlisle -- but the balance is precarious and getting less favorable every day. The district was heavily gerrymandered by the Pennsylvania Democrat Supreme Court when it trashed the state's entire district map in 2018, and a specific effort was made to "get" Perry from that point forward. He has managed to survive despite that effort, sometimes just barely. Democrats are going all-out this year and will spend as much as it takes; on the other hand Perry has relatively little cash on hand for such a well-entrenched and threatened incumbent.

Perry's status in Congress is unique in one respect -- east of Ohio and north of the Mason-Dixon line there is exactly one conservative Republican in the U.S. House: Scott Perry. An unabashed Trump supporter in addition to his reliable conservatism, Perry routinely causes crazed liberals to foam at the mouth. And not just liberals in the Democrat party; the liberal (money-controlling) wing of the GOP is no fan of Perry either, and there is only scant evidence of the party's support for Perry in 2024 so far.

Perry faced no primary opposition, which is good since he can hardly afford it. The winner of the Rat primary was, as expected, Janelle Stelson, a "bubble headed bleach blonde" talking head from a local Harrisburg TV station.

Stelson wasn't quite the wealthiest Democrat running in the primary field of 6; that was Mike O'Brien, a left-winger claiming to be a "patriot" who ran on his military record. O'Brien was trounced by nearly a 2:1 margin, finishing a distant second. This was always the likeliest outcome; in recent years the Democrat primary electorate nearly always adheres to the diktats of political correctness. Given two candidates with similar leftist credentials and the same mandatory hatreds, female always outranks male, black always outranks White, etc. Sorry, Mikey. If you're not openly gay or a transvestite (and maybe even if you are), you're second-class here.

In any event, the only patriot who was ever in this race is Scott Perry, and he's going to need a lot of help to not only overcome the usual Democrat $$$ advantages, but also to get his message out and overcome the relentlessly negative/biased media coverage from Stelson's allies in the Harrisburg, York and Carlisle areas. Along with the national media, which has made it a priority to help the Democrats pick up this House seat.

Unlike Pennsylvania's CD-12 which is a pipe dream for the GOP, this district really is a battleground and there are at least 20 others just like it nationwide.

These districts have Republican incumbents who are running for re-election, and who are in for the fight of their lives. Some ignorant observers believe that the supposed plethora of open Republican seats will be the ones which are going to be lost and therefore would be the districts responsible for the upcoming loss of House control. That is patently false. Control of the House will be decided first and foremost in these battleground districts rather than the open GOP districts, and both parties know it. The Democrats clearly do, as evidenced by all of the money being funneled into them.

Further down the ballot at the state legislative level, there was some good news for both parties.

In House District 50, GOP incumbent Bud Cook fended off a challenge from Stephanie Waggett. Cook, a mostly conservative representative, was accused of "having a problem with how he treats women" so Waggett changed her party affiliation from Democrat to Republican to oppose Cook. She appears to have lost by a wide margin, and the Democrats did not run a candidate in this GOP-leaning district.

In the extremely solid 80th District, incumbent moderate Republican Jim Gregory was defeated. Gregory crawled into bed with Democrats in 2023 to thwart legislation which would have enhanced desperately-needed election integrity measures in PA by requiring voter ID.

The GOP primary race in the 117th District (Wilkes-Barre suburbs) is still too close to call, but incumbent liberal Republican Michael Cabell was trailing by a very small amount on the morning after the primary. Cabell raised over 5 times as much money as his challenger but hopefully will end up losing anyway.

Photo credit: glensidelocal.com

But the biggest winners at the state House level were the Democrats, who audibly sighed with relief at the results of the district 172 primary, in which mentally diseased liberal representative Kevin Boyle was running for re-election.

In 2021, Boyle was arrested on charges of harassment and violating a protection from abuse (PFA) order. Two months ago, Boyle was drunk off his overprivileged ass in a Philadelphia bar shortly after midnight and played the "don't you know who the f--- I am?!?" card (a direct quote, actually) when asked nicely to leave. This servant of the people then threatened to use his political influence to have the bar closed forever and threatened to assault the female employees.

He emerged from that episode unscathed in exactly the same way that no Republican ever would, but just as the limited furor over that incident had passed, a warrant was issued for Boyle's arrest for violating his PFA. According to an article posted on the "PA Townhall.com" website, the warrant came following "weeks of escalating public outbursts from the state lawmaker, whose deteriorating mental state forced Democratic leadership to rescind his committee chairmanship". Democrats have allowed Boyle to vote remotely on legislation despite his status as a fugitive. Boyle's vote is important given the narrow 102-100 margin the Rats have recently had in the PA House. [The margin is now 102-101 after the GOP easily won a special election yesterday in the 139th District, making Boyle's continued participation from his undisclosed hideout even more critical to Democrats.]

Like any other arrogant Democrat politician/criminal, Boyle figures he's above the law. And he has good reason to think so -- because he is.

Not only is nothing happening regarding his alcohol-fueled activities from February, but just one day before the primary, hyper-partisan Democrat Philly D.A. Larry Krasner suddenly withdrew the arrest warrant which had been issued on Boyle. The D.A. lamely asserted that there was a "piece missing" in the case, that piece apparently being the fact that Boyle is not a Republican. Which means the two-tiered "justice" system works in his favor instead of against him, as Dirty Larry has ensured.

Boyle still lost yesterday, as most Democrats hoped he would. If he hadn't, Republicans would've been handed a golden opportunity to pick up the seat in November. District 172 should be at least somewhat marginal, but it normally favors Democrats pretty heavily these days.

If Boyle had won, his own party was preparing to create a law which would allow them to expel him; then there would have been a quickie special election, a new Democrat elected in Boyle's place, and the seat would have been salvaged for November. This was the same logic which impelled the Republicans to eject conservative freshman George Santos from the U.S. House, but the Stupid Party neglected to take into account the leftward lean of Santos' district and the major funding advantage Democrats always have in competitive districts, and so they threw away the seat needlessly. But at least they got rid of a conservative, so it wasn't a total loss for the RINOs!


2024 Pennsylvania

3/29/2024: [Texas] The 2024 Senate Race Has Been Called! [RightDataUSA]

Photo credit: ABC News (from 6 years ago, so don't get excited)

Of course it's really quite far from being over, but not according to some rando with a blog which gets posted on a site called "American Thinker". Not deep thinkers apparently, but at least they are hopeful ones and they're on the right side.

The blogger references a recent Marist poll which shows Ted Cruz with a mundane 51% to 45% lead over celebrity Democrat challenger Collin Allred. As polling organizations go Marist has been reasonably accurate lately, but one poll taken 8 months before the election, which shows a 6-point lead for the good guy with nearly a 4% margin of error is hardly conclusive.

Or is it? The blogger declares that this poll "confirms that Mr. Cruz will win" and he advises the Democrats to spend their money elsewhere. They already are spending money elsewhere -- lots of it -- and do not need to concern themselves with economizing like Republicans often must do.

The poll "confirms" something? Pre-election polls predict (or try to influence) election outcomes. They do not confirm anything except perhaps that a race will either be close or a landslide or somewhere in between, and this particular race sure as hell won't be any landslide.

There is no reason to presume that a positive outcome here is guaranteed, and subsequent polls will definitely "confirm" that, however there are some good reasons to believe that Cruz will be re-elected: this is a presidential election year and Trump's presence on the ballot will help Cruz, unlike in the 2018 midterm when Cruz only narrowly defeated another Democrat celebutard; Allred is of course a media darling but he's a completely dim bulb; and it's hard to imagine so many tickets being split that Trump wins Texas but Cruz loses it.

On the other hand, nobody can doubt that Texas is a rapidly "purpling" state (going from true blue towards commie red). This is not a recent development and has been apparent for quite some time. However what is a recent development is the increased mass invasion of Democrat voters from south of the border. The impact of that is not yet baked into political outcomes, but by November it may well be.

Texas is being invaded from every direction and not just from the south, taking in refugees from all other states but particularly ones such as California, New York, Illinois, etc. which have been destroyed by a long period of thoroughly incompetent and corrupt one-party Democrat rule. Not all invaders are liberals, but the numbers strongly suggest that a majority of them are.

Below is a table which shows the number of registered voters back to 2022 along with the most recent available data for 2024 for the most populous counties in the Lone Star State. Texas does not register voters by party so there is no way to determine how many of these new voters are Democrats, though some folks have methods to derive party-orientation estimates. However these are really just guesstimates and do not necessarily have a great deal of accuracy.

The 12 counties in the table account for approximately 62% of all registered voters in the state. The good news is that the proportionate increase of new voters is the same statewide as it is in these dozen (mostly) leftward-trending counties, and that balance is important. At the present rate there will be a net gain of about three-quarters of a million voters in Texas by this November as compared to last November. That is a far greater increase than occurred between 2022 and 2023. But in a presidential election year, particularly one accompanied by an invasion, a larger number of registered voters is to be expected. Especially if the voter rolls are not periodically cleansed to get rid of ineligible and deceased voters.

County Nov. 2022 Nov. 2023 Mar. 2024 Nov. 2024* 2023-24
Bexar 1,230,662 1,231,380 1,244,216 1,279,515 3.91%
Collin 693,753 704,486 715,657 746,377 5.95%
Dallas 1,420,223 1,411,043 1,421,371 1,449,773 2.74%
Denton 606,275 621,564 630,984 656,889 5.68%
El Paso 506,554 496,767 502,700 519,016 4.48%
Fort Bend 521,611 521,416 529,558 551,949 5.86%
Harris 2,568,463 2,590,121 2,611,025 2,668,511 3.03%
Hidalgo 416,978 424,886 430,164 444,679 4.66%
Montgomery 409,759 423,577 431,434 453,041 6.96%
Tarrant 1,260,870 1,256,474 1,269,019 1,303,518 3.74%
Travis 886,480 883,569 890,646 910,108 3.00%
Williamson 415,096 420,409 425,749 440,434 4.76%
Total (12 counties) 10,936,724 10,985,692 11,102,523 11,423,810 3.99%
State total 17,672,143 17,759,273 17,948,242 18,467,907 3.99%

* Projected

The fastest-growing county on the list is the best one: Montgomery County, which for the time being retains a healthy Republican majority in all elections. It will continue to do so for many years to come, albeit with decreasing percentages. Rapid, massive growth is not always a good thing. When something grows rapidly inside a body it's called "cancer". Excessive growth in a good county or state always -- eventually -- has a cancerous effect too.

Montgomery County has already absorbed too much detritus from adjacent Harris County (Houston) among other places, and its demographics are showing the strain. Its election results are beginning to show deterioration too; it's still very subtle at this time, but Montgomery County unquestionably has reached its peak.

This doesn't mean that the county has gone insane and will begin electing Democrats anytime soon, just that its rightward motion has stopped and has begun to reverse. Montgomery County's future probably looks very much like Fort Bend County's present.

It's an inviolable law of demographics that bad people always follow (and then drive out) the good people from desirable areas, until those areas are no longer desirable. Fortunately new good areas naturally arise, even farther away from the urban center. The cycle continues as, over time, the new areas are ruined as well.

Like Montgomery County (except at a faster rate), the entire state of Texas has been "purpling", as anyone who actually takes the time to look can easily attest to. To see a bigger picture, we'll pull back and focus on metro areas rather than individual counties. The four metro areas which dominate the Texas landscape are:

  • Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington: 7,943,685 population as of 2022
  • Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land: 7,340,118
  • San Antonio-New Braunfels: 2,655,342
  • Austin-Round Rock-Georgetown: 2,421,115

These four areas accounted for 7,856,153 votes in the 2020 presidential election, which was 69.4% of all votes cast in the state of Texas. Trump got 3,670,374 of those votes (46.7%) and Biden received 4,056,573 (51.6%).

The rest of the state outside these four urban and suburban areas gave Trump a massive 64.0% to 34.7% win.

Here is the data for the 2016 presidential election:

Big-4 Metros Rest of State
Trump2,900,298 (47.6%)1,784,749 (61.5%)
Hillary2,870,422 (47.1%)1,007,446 (34.7%)
Total6,089,982 2,903,184

Between 2016 and 2020 Trump went from narrowly winning the Big-4 (by 0.5%) to being demolished by 4.9%. The areas in Texas which are being invaded the heaviest -- not just via Mexico -- are the ones moving to the left the quickest. Furthermore, these urban/suburban areas increased their share of the state vote by nearly 2% (from 67.7% up to 69.4%) in 2020. Apparently turnout was relatively higher in these demographically-decaying areas than it was in the rest of Texas, or perhaps it was just easier in these urban localities for Democrat vote-counters to "find" more absentee/mail-in ballots in precincts they controlled. Either way.

In the rest of Texas, Trump increased his winning margin from 26.8% to 29.3%. This dovetails with the assertion that Hispanics moved significantly towards Trump (but not necessarily all other Republicans) between 2016 and 2020.

That assertion is only half-true, however. Rural Hispanics in Texas and in some other states did in fact move sharply to the right, a development which the tribe of media controllers has desperately suppressed in its (lack of) reporting since 2020. Urban and suburban Hispanics in Texas and elsewhere have shown no such rightward trend, or if they have it has been mostly inconsequential.

In Texas as of 2022 there were 7,437,831 urban/suburban Hispanics in the four major metro areas out of a total of 12,068,549 Hispanics in the state -- over 61% reside in the metros. Yet they are "underrepresented" there. Texas as a whole was about 40% Hispanic, but the figure in the Big-4 was only 36.5%. In the entire rest of the state, Hispanics account for almost 50% (47.9% to be exact) of the population.

Their swing to the right, even if just a temporary Trump-related phenomenon, is nice but the impact is muted by the far greater number of non-rural Hispanics who are still refusing to leave the Democrat plantation.

The following tables illustrate the recent leftward lurch in the major metropolitan areas of Texas:

Metro Dallas-Fort Worth:

2020 Joe Biden (D) 1,535,525 49.8% Donald Trump* (R) 1,495,550 48.5%
2016 Donald Trump (R) 1,218,897 50.5% Hillary Clinton (D) 1,066,312 44.2%

Metro Houston:

2020 Joe Biden (D) 1,330,116 49.8% Donald Trump* (R) 1,302,436 48.8%
2016 Donald Trump (R) 1,012,507 48.3% Hillary Clinton (D) 991,171 47.3%

Metro San Antonio:

2020 Joe Biden (D) 529,607 50.8% Donald Trump* (R) 495,195 47.5%
2016 Donald Trump (R) 380,665 47.8% Hillary Clinton (D) 371,623 46.7%

Metro Austin:

2020 Joe Biden (D) 661,325 62.3% Donald Trump* (R) 377,293 35.5%
2016 Hillary Clinton (D) 441,316 56.1% Donald Trump (R) 288,229 36.7%

Texas has voted GOP for president in every election since 1980. However as measured by its Republican presidential voting percentage as compared to the rest of the United States, it could be considered as truly "solid" blue (note proper color usage) from 1996 through 2012, based on voting around 10 points (or more) greater than the average for the GOP candidate in the country as a whole.

2020 Donald Trump* (R) 5,890,347 52.0% Joe Biden (D) 5,259,126 46.4%
2016 Donald Trump (R) 4,685,047 52.1% Hillary Clinton (D) 3,877,868 43.1%
2012 Mitt Romney (R) 4,569,843 57.1% Barack Obama* (D) 3,308,124 41.4%
2008 John McCain (R) 4,479,328 55.4% Barack Obama (D) 3,528,633 43.6%
2004 George W. Bush* (R) 4,526,917 61.1% John Kerry (D) 2,832,704 38.2%
2000 George W. Bush (R) 3,799,639 59.3% Albert Gore, Jr. (D) 2,433,746 38.0%
1996 Robert Dole (R) 2,736,167 48.8% Bill Clinton* (D) 2,459,683 43.8%
1992 George Bush* (R) 2,496,071 40.6% Bill Clinton (D) 2,281,815 37.1%
1988 George Bush (R) 3,036,829 56.0% Michael Dukakis (D) 2,352,748 43.3%
1984 Ronald Reagan* (R) 3,433,428 63.6% Walter Mondale (D) 1,949,276 36.1%
1980 Ronald Reagan (R) 2,510,705 55.3% Jimmy Carter* (D) 1,881,147 41.4%

As of 2016 and 2020, the relative voting percentage for the GOP in presidential elections in Texas is back to where it was in the 1980's when it first flipped from Democrat to Republican. In 2020 that percentage actually declined relative to the U.S., despite the fact that rural Hispanics in Texas voted for the Party of Trump in record numbers. As of 2020 and even 2022, it's worth repeating that the dramatic Hispanic trend to the right has been very limited geographically; urban and suburban Hispanics -- in Texas or anywhere else -- are trending that direction only very slightly, if they are even moving rightward at all.

Back to the future: Cruz should win the 2024 Senate election in Texas by about 5 points (plus or -- yes, possibly -- minus) and Trump should win by a little more than Cruz does. It's extremely unlikely that either one, especially Cruz, will get a 10-point margin like Greg Abbott (10.7% margin in 2022) or John Cornyn (9.6% margin in 2020) got last time they ran.

It's no secret that the Rats are definitely going to lose the West Virginia Senate seat and might lose Ohio and/or Montana. Some pipe dreamers would add other states to that list. But even just flipping WV makes it a 50-50 Senate. A Trump win gives the Republicans control with the vice-president breaking the tie, depending of course on whether any liberal Republican Senate incumbents decide to bolt from the party.

To digress briefly, we predicted back in 2022 that Sen. Lisa Murkowski would do exactly that if it had been necessary to deprive the Republicans of a Senate majority (it wasn't necessary, as things turned out) but now it appears that our prediction might come true a couple of years later. Don't rule out Sen. Susan Collins doing the same thing if it appears that President Trump would have a Senate that is under Republican control (oh noes!). Both of these dried-up old RINO hags are fully aware that they are in their final Senate terms and will never have to face the voters again.

So 50-50 is the most realistic partisan breakdown in the Senate for 2025 as things stand now: the GOP goes +1 and maybe gets one or two more if things go unusually well in November. Texas is the one state where Democrats have any chance whatsoever of picking up a seat in the Senate. Does anyone really believe they aren't going to pull out all the stops to try to achieve that?

The latest FEC reports still show the Democrat empty suit with more money to spend than the incumbent Republican. Cruz has raised a ton -- but has spent just about all of it (on what?). He'll get more, but he'll never catch Allred in terms of cash-on-hand unless he hoards all he's got and never spends it. It's not unusual at all for a Democrat to have more money to work with than a Republican. It is unusual for an incumbent Senator to trail in the financial department.

The customary advantages that Democrats enjoy in all major statewide races (financial support, and across-the-board support from the "mainstream" media) still probably won't add up to a defeat for Ted Cruz this time around, but this mindless blogger chatter about some poll "confirming" that he "will" definitely win in November is extremely premature.


2024 Senate Texas Going Purple Ted Cruz

3/13/2024: [Ohio] If the presidential slate is set, will Ohio's GOP voters still show up for the U.S. Senate primary? [Ohio Capital Journal]

Photo credit: WCMH-TV

The photo shows the three GOP Senate candidates, Larry, Moe(reno) and Curly, during a recent debate. Leftist Matt Dolan is the stooge who is positioned on the right. Moreno isn't really a stooge of course, but he's certainly surrounded by them here. Speaking of being positioned on the right, the gaslighting article which accompanies that photo was written by an ultra-liberal NPR media twerp and therefore reads like a Dolan campaign commercial.

The past: In 2022 in many important statewide elections, there was nothing to vote for in the Democrat primaries because their nominee had already been anointed. The same is true in 2024. That means Democrat party puppetmasters and Democrat voters are free to spend time and money influencing the outcome of Republican primary elections for their own benefit.

Like Nimrod Haley did during the brief time when she was supposedly a viable presidential candidate, other liberal Republicans like Matt Dolan are desperately seeking Democrat votes in their primary battles against actual Republicans. This is nothing new for Dolan, a left-wing state legislator who ran for the U.S. Senate in 2022 and is running again this year. In 2022 he begged Democrats to vote for him in the GOP primary, because otherwise he stood zero chance against Trump-endorsed J.D. Vance.

That tactic came closer to succeeding than it should have. In polls taken only a few weeks before the 2022 Ohio primary, Dolan was barely cracking double-digits in what was essentially a three-way race with Vance and Josh Mandel. Mandel, the former state Treasurer, had been a milquetoast candidate against Sherrod Brown in 2012 and Brown mopped the floor with him. That happened despite the fact that the Republicans actually competed on nearly equal financial footing with the Democrat, which has become quite an uncommon occurrence in contested states since that time.

With the help of thousands of Democrat voters and the endorsements of other liberal Republicans, Dolan surged in the final voting to over 23%, just a fraction of a percentage point behind Mandel. Vance of course won that primary, but with barely 30% of the overall vote. Vance didn't break the one-third mark even though he had the endorsement of Donald Trump and the endorsement of former primary opponent Bernie Moreno. Moreno had dropped out of the race in February of 2022, heroically sacrificing his campaign in order to avoid a damaging split of the conservative primary vote.

The present: There's another three-way race in Ohio in 2024 for the Republican nomination to the U.S. Senate. Having patiently waited his turn, Moreno is back for another run and has Trump's endorsement. That endorsement was made in December but, oddly, has not resulted in a great leap forward for Moreno in the polls. The next poll after Trump's blessing actually showed Moreno with a smaller lead over liberal Dolan and moderate Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose.

Subsequent polls did show a small bump for Bernie, however a poll which came out this morning puts Moreno down by 3 points to the liberal Dolan with many voters still undecided less than one week from election day. That poll also shows incumbent ultra-liberal Democrat Sherrod Brown winning vs. all three GOP candidates though not yet breaking 40% against any of them.

Brown, like all Democrat Senate nominees in competitive states, has an astronomical advantage in campaign cash over his Republican challengers. LaRose in particular has practically nothing to work with compared to his opponents in both parties. As of the end of February, Brown had raised over $33 million with nearly $14 million of it still in the bank. Dolan and Moreno each are somewhere around $2.4 million while LaRose has the piddly total of $591,000 cash-on-hand. That's not enough to compete for a hotly-contested U.S. House race in a single district these days, nevermind trying to run a statewide campaign in Ohio on such a thin shoestring.

Article author Nick Evans, evidently writing on behalf of the Dolan campaign, describes the liberal legislator as "quite conservative". This causes the remainder of the article to be read through tears of laughter by anyone who is actually familiar with Dolan. In an attempt to make Dolan palatable to other supposedly conservative Trump-haters, Evans ludicrously claims that Dolan has worked feverishly to enact the "Trump agenda" in Ohio while at the same time distancing himself from the President as much as possible.

Insofar as a political candidate is known by the company he keeps, Dolan is supported by Rob Portman, the former senator and squish who is still highly regarded in RINO circles; and the highest-ranking squish in the state, wimpy Governor Mike DeWine. LaRose is doing just about as well with high-profile endorsements as he is with campaign fundraising (pretty much none at all of either one). LaRose does have the support of liberal Republican congressman Mike Turner of Dayton.

Moreno not only has Trump in his corner, but also solid conservatives such as Senators Mike Lee, Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, J.D. Vance, Tommy Tuberville, Marsha Blackburn and others with whom Moreno will work as part of the opposition (non-RINO) caucus in the Senate if he is elected. He is also endorsed by bigwigs such as Jim Jordan, Kari Lake, Vivek Ramaswamy, Donald Trump Jr. and (oh well) Newt Gingrich. Like them or not, they are all conservative heavyweights or were in the past (Gingrich).

Insofar as a political candidate is known by what he has actually done legislatively, here is Matt Dolan's record:
  • Pro-abortionist
  • Anti-gun
  • Supported "contact tracing" and dictatorial powers for "health" officials during the plandemic
  • Opposed arming teachers (or any armed security) in dangerous urban schools or ghetto-ized suburban schools
  • Supports the Democrat vote-buying tactic of student loan "forgiveness"
  • Supports "green" energy mandates
  • Favors higher property taxes
  • Favors taxpayer-financed handouts in corrupt ghetto areas under the guise of "neighborhood development"

Yeah Nicky, he's quite the conservative.

There is only one logical conclusion, and it's addressed to only one candidate though it's probably already too late to have a significant effect:

Drop out now, Mr. LaRose, and endorse Bernie Moreno. Don't be the person responsible for giving the puppetmasters, the media, and other Democrats a win-win in November.


2024 Senate Ohio Moreno & the Two Stooges Win-win for Democrats

3/4/2024: [New York] NY Dems adopt new redistricting map with no threat of GOP lawsuit, ending 3-year saga [Lohud]

Photo credit: NY "Independent" Redistricting Commission

There's considerable talk about how the Democrats played nice this time by not screwing Republicans as hard as they were expected to (i.e. as hard as possible). Doddering old NYGOP chairman Ed Cox -- yes, THAT Ed Cox, Tricky Dick's son-in-law -- believes that his party was merely bent over to a small degree, therefore he has unilaterally declared that there will be no lawsuits filed against this Democrat gerrymander.

Even though Democrats never had any reason to fear a challenge to their latest attempt to seize control of the U.S. House of Representatives, they wanted to implement a plan which would be described by the always-cooperative media as "modest" yet still be highly effective. This modest Rat plan rigs the election outcomes against the four remaining vulnerable freshmen GOP incumbents in New York as much as necessary, while mostly leaving the other districts alone. Aside from the one formerly represented by George Santos and recently lost in a special election; the Democrats are taking no chances of that district flipping back to Republican control in November.

Here is an article which reveals Democrat gaslighting regarding their New York gerrymander, with a surprisingly fair (by far-left media standards) account of the situation in between all of the usual drivel supplied by the quotes of liberal Democrats:


Their punch line is that this gerrymander is plenty good enough for Democrats -- which it is -- and if it had been rejected and replaced by a more aggressive Democrat gerrymander authored by the state legislature, even sleepy Ed Cox would have been inspired to take action. The resulting lawsuit would have possibly required that the current (2022) district lines be used in the meantime, and even worse (for Democrats) the suit may have succeeded and caused a fairer district map to be created. By reaching just enough, but not overreaching here, liberals have greatly increased their chances of House control in 2025 despite their crocodile tears.

The significantly endangered New York freshmen Republicans are Anthony D'Esposito (CD-4), Mike Lawler (CD-17), Marc Molinaro (CD-19) and especially Brandon Williams (CD-22). They were significantly endangered even before having to deal with newly-gerrymandered districts, as we have written several times. Each of these four are cowardly liberal backstabbers -- just ask George Santos -- but at least they're our cowardly liberal backstabbers; they have R's after their names and that's a lot better than having a D there.

Well, it's a little better anyway. Maybe.

As to the argument that squishes like these guys are the best we can do in marginal or left-leaning districts, sometimes it's better to keep your enemies as far away as possible rather than letting them pretend they're "team players". They may be team players, but they aren't necessarily playing for the team whose uniform they are wearing at the moment.

For example: there's a liberal Republican stooge in the House from Pennsylvania by the name of Brian Fitzpatrick. He represents a marginal district in the rapidly-deteriorating suburbs of Philadelphia, and Democrats are so satisfied with this RINO that they don't seriously oppose his re-election bids.

Fitzpatrick's late brother Michael once served in Congress from this same district. Michael was no conservative by any means, but at least he never forgot which party he belonged to. However in 2023 there was exactly one member of the House of Representatives who voted against his own party more often than he voted with his party. That turncoat was Brian Fitzpatrick, who, over 50% of the time, voted exactly the way the Democrats wanted him to vote.

Last week, Brian came in for some flattery from the liberal media when he stated that he and several like-minded traitors in the so-called "bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus" were preparing some shenanigans to do an end-run around Speaker Mike Johnson unless the reluctant Speaker permits a vote on a bill which would send even more American money to the corrupt Democrat money-laundering regime known as "Ukraine". This must happen, so say the RINO scum, without any linkage to legislation which would address real problems of actual concern to the good people of America -- like the unabated sewage flowing north from Mexico which will adversely affect our economy and the integrity (LOL) of our elections.

If the Democrat coup is successful in November, look for this traitor to collect his 30 pieces of silver and switch over to the new majority party in the House. BTW, the filing deadline in PA has passed and Fitzpatrick has no viable primary challenger (just one woefully underfunded opponent) and the same Democrat loser who ran halfheartedly in 2022 is running again, albeit with more money this time. So "prymarry hiz azz!!!" isn't going to work this time around; it rarely ever works at all.

Speaking of liberal credentials, guess which "Republican" supported President Alzheimer the most in 2022? Actually Fitzpatrick was only second on that list. Number 1 was the late (but not lamented) drooling Trump-hater Adam Kinzinger, who supported the Biden agenda fully 80% of the time with his votes in the House.

Here are the 2023 Party Unity scores for the Dirty Dozen who top the RINO charts:

  1. Brian Fitzpatrick (PA-1): 47%
  2. Lori Chavez-DeRemer (OR-5): 64%
  3. Mike Lawler (NY-17): 65%
  4. Tom Kean, Jr. (NY-7): 67%
  5. Mike Turner (OH-10): 70%
  6. Don Bacon (NE-2): 71%
  7. Anthony D'Esposito (NY-4): 72%
  8. Young Kim (CA-40): 72%
  9. Kevin Kiley (CA-3): 72%
  10. Andrew Garbarino (NY-2): 72%
  11. Marc Molinaro (NY-19): 73%
  12. David Valadao (CA-22): 73%

By way of contrast, Santos, whom many of his GOP colleagues abhorred and voted to expel back in December, voted with his party 92% of the time in 2023. He also voted the conservative position on 91% of key votes according to our calculations, so you can see why RINOs and other liberals wouldn't want him around. We'll post Santos' American Conservative Union score along with the scores of all other Congressmen and Senators if that organzation ever gets around to releasing its 2023 ratings of Congress.

Of the 25 representatives who deviated from their party most often last year, 24 of them were Republicans. This helps explain why even with a (miniscule and getting smaller) numerical majority in the House, Republicans do not truly have "control". The same phenomenon applies in many state legislatures, particularly out West, where the GOP appears to have tremendous numerical advantages. Those tremendous advantages are often caused by Democrats masquerading as Republicans in order to get elected -- and then, to their delight, these Democrats discover that as moderates/liberals they are comfortably in line with the ideological majority in their GOP caucuses.

There was only one House Democrat in 2023, Jared Golden of Maine (72%), who was disunited from the rest of his Democrat comrades at a similar level to those Republicans who are listed above. He represents a Republican-leaning district which voted twice for President Trump but has also voted 3 times for Golden. Between his ability to fool a sufficient number of constituents into thinking that he's a moderate, and having Rigged Choice Voting around to save him when necessary, Golden has managed to be continually re-elected.

Maybe that will change when he faces former NASCAR driver and current freshman Maine legislator Austin Theriault in November. Don't get your hopes up too high though; Golden currently has nearly 5 times the amount of money as his Republican challenger. As anyone who looks at candidate financial reports can easily discern, there's not a House district or Senate seat in the U.S. where Democrats can't outspend Republicans by incredible margins if they want to. We're probably going to see more evidence of that in 2024 than ever before.


2024 U.S. House New York Democrat gerrymander Say goodbye to Speaker Johnson

2/10/2024: [Montana] Creating a 'Divisive Primary': NRSC Chair Blasts Rosendale's Senate Run [Townhall]

Photo credit: townhall.com

Confirming what had been rumored for months, conservative two-term congressman Matt Rosendale on Friday announced his entry into the Montana Senate race against ultra-liberal Democrat Jon Tester -- and the GOP establishment is absolutely irate at this development.

National Republican Senate Committee (NRSC) chairman Steve Daines, a squish who serves as Mitch McConnell's sock puppet regarding GOP Senate election campaigns (and who also happens to be from Montana) immediately ran crying to the liberal media to attack Rosendale for creating a "divisive primary". The establishment already had a horse in this race: moderate newcomer Tim Sheehy, a wealthy businessman who was selected on the basis of being able to help fund his own campaign, and on the basis of not being too conservative -- the two things the GOPe looks for the most in a candidate these days.

Daines blasted Rosendale for giving Tester "the biggest win of his career" when the two faced off in the last Senate election for this seat in 2018. In his lame attempt to smear Rosendale as a loser and as a bad candidate, the NRSC squish conveniently left out a few pertinent facts:

  • That "biggest win" was by a mere 3.6 percentage points, in the Democrat landslide year of 2018 when every election for the House or Senate was a referendum on the Trump presidency and the haters came out of the woodwork to show how much they despised Trump and pretty much anyone else with an (R) after his name.

  • In that year, Tester was allowed to spend nearly 4 times more than Rosendale, as the Republican party left Rosendale high and dry in the money department. Yet, even as a relative unknown in statewide politics, with little name recognition and facing an incumbent who had all the money in the world to campaign with, the Republican still came within 3.6 points of a major upset.

    It would have been even closer than that if not for the presence on the ballot of Libertarian candidate Rick Breckenridge who took nearly 3 percent himself despite withdrawing from the race (too late) and endorsing Rosendale. Breckenridge took exception to an "anonymous" Democrat dirty-trick mailer which made fraudulent claims about the Republican and encouraged GOP voters to choose the Libertarian instead.

  • Speaking of being a newcomer, the main Democrat campaign tactic (aside from dirty tricks) in 2018 was to paint Rosendale as an outsider because he was not born in Montana and had only resided in the state for a paltry 16 years as of 2018. This "outsider" had actually served in the MT state legislature for 6 years (2011-2016) and in 2016 was elected statewide as Auditor.

    Following his defeat in the 2018 Senate election, Rosendale completed his term as Auditor and then ran for and won the statewide U.S. House seat in 2020. After reapportionment gave MT a second House seat, Rosendale was re-elected in 2022. Yet as recently as last year articles were quoting Republican sources -- who feared a Rosendale Senate run -- as being incapable of ever winning statewide in Montana despite the fact that he had done so twice already. The utilization of outright lies and dirty tricks in campaigns isn't limited to Democrats; liberal Republicans are allowed to resort to those as well, but only against a conservative.

If divisive primaries truly are such a bad thing as Daines is whining, then he has apparently adopted another typical Democrat trait here: hypocrisy.

In West Virginia, conservative Congressman Alex Mooney declared his Senate run against Joe Manchin back in November, 2022, long before Manchin chickened out and elected to run away, rather than run for re-election. Guess who suddenly decided that a "divisive primary" would be a good thing? That's right, Steve Daines, Mitch McConnell and the rest of the simps who control the Senate GOP. These cowards panicked and ran to doddering old moderate Governor Jim Justice, desperately begging him to run against Mooney and promising him lavish support if he would do so.

The GOPe's purchase of the ex-Democrat Governor was finalized in April of 2023, six months after Mooney announced his run. There are several other pissant-level candidates in the Republican primary, but Mooney would have been effectively unopposed for the Senate nomination; that was a prospect which clearly terrified the establishment. Perhaps due to Justice's late start, Mooney -- with zero support from the party puppetmasters -- has actually outraised his moderate opponent and has more cash-on-hand as of the most recent financial reports.

Continuing his string of blundering and inexplicable endorsements, Trump had already endorsed the moderate candidate in West Virginia and then made a deliberate point -- just moments after conservative Rosendale announced in Montana -- of blundering again and endorsing Sheehy. Perhaps Trump admires successful businessmen who (like himself) are not overly conservative. Plus an affinity for political neophytes and dilettantes, such as the supposedly "Electable Dr. Oz" in Pennsylvania.

Other party bigwigs also felt the jerk of the puppet strings yesterday and jumped into line behind Sheehy following Rosendale's apostasy. They include Governor Kristi Noem of South Dakota and pathetically ineffective House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA). Johnson had originally promised to support Rosendale, but then he received new marching orders and immediately reneged on that promise.

A poll taken last year when Rosendale was merely considering getting into the race against Tester showed that he had much stronger support among Republican primary voters than Sheehy did. This is starting to add up to another "Oz" situation: Sheehy isn't a bad person but he's in way over his head here and all the establishment money in the world isn't likely to save him. Republicans don't have all the money in the world anyway -- but Democrats sure seem to. Tester currently has over $11 million to work with, while neither Rosendale nor the wealthy moderate businessman have as much as $2 million.

Even with Trump's Golden Endorsement, Electable Oz barely made it out of the Senate primary in PA in 2022. Sheehy has a good chance to not get even that far.

If Rosendale wins the primary despite all of the establishment supporting his rival, we'll see where the GOP money goes then. Our guess is that it will dry up completely, proving once again that in any contest between an ultra-liberal Democrat and a conservative Republican, the GOPe prefers the former every time. In this case, Senate control be damned.


2024 Senate Montana Matt Rosendale Irate establshment Blundering endorsements

2/8/2024: Final 2023 campaign finance reports -- Democrats way ahead in the key races [RightDataUSA]

[The image is backwards -- the big money is, as always, on the left. The amount on the right is whatever Ronna McRomney at the RNC can spare from her lipstick and botox fund.]

Last week the Federal Election Commission released the 2023 year-end financial data which shows the volume of money raised and spent by each candidate for the U.S. House or Senate. Funds raised which have already been spent are not of particular relevance at this point; instead we focus on the much more important cash-on-hand figures.

Approximately 11 months ago we published a list of 59 congressional incumbents who, based on the nature of their districts and the closeness of their wins in 2022, are obviously the most vulnerable in 2024. On the Democrat side, three of the supposedly Vulnerable 29 have opted not to seek re-election. All of the 30 Republicans who are facing the toughest odds are seeking re-election, except for George Santos (NY-3) who was expelled from Congress last December. Lauren Boebert (CO-3) is running again, but in a different district than the one she currently represents, so those two seats are considered to be open for the moment (NY-3 won't be open after next week).

Let's look at how these incumbents are doing in the money department, and how serious their opposition is likely to be. The vast majority of the nearly 400 other House seats which are up for re-election in November are, as usual, not likely to be competitive. The financial data shown in the following tables is effective as of 12/31/2023. Campaign fundraising and spending will really kick into high gear later this year, but the data even as it stands now illustrates quite nicely how these races are progressing.

Democrat incumbents:

Incumbent District Cash-on-Hand Republican
Mary PeltolaAK At-Large$1.774 million$382,000
Mike LevinCA-49 $1,242 millionalmost $2 million
Yadira CaraveoCO-8$1.359 million$389,000
Jahana HayesCT-5$1.030 million$372,000
Nikki BudzinskiIL-13$1.399 millionnot seriously trying
Eric SorensenIL-17$1.631 million$218,000
Frank MrvanIN-1$823,000 $192,000
Sharice DavidsKS-3$1.646 million$391,000
Jared GoldenME-2$1.436 million$338,000
Hillary ScholtenMI-3$1.364 million$448,000
Angie CraigMN-2$2.152 million$269,000
Don DavisNC-1$820,000$1.115 million
Chris PappasNH-1$1.255 million$628,000
Gabriel VasquezNM-2$1.247 million$783,000
Susie LeeNV-3$1.585 million$397,000
Steven HorsfordNV-4No report filed but surely over $1 million$483,000
Pat RyanNY-18$2.212 million$198,000
Greg LandsmanOH-1$1.216 millionloose change
Marcy KapturOH-9$1.325 million$665,000
Emilia SykesOH-13$1.113 million$418,000
Andrea SalinasOR-6$1.098 millionnot seriously trying
Susan WildPA-7$1.578 million$343,000
Matt CartwrightPA-8$2.012 million$636,000
Chris DeluzioPA-17$986,000$282,000
Marie Gluesenkamp PerezWA-3$2.181 million$672,000
Kim SchrierWA-8$2.164 millionnot seriously trying

In every single case the Democrats have a large amount of cash on hand; in only 2 districts (CA-49 and NC-1) are the Republican challengers, even if they pooled their money -- coming close. Now let's take a look at some races where those factors do not always hold.

Republican incumbents:

Incumbent District Cash-on-Hand Democrat
David SchweikertAZ-1$902,000$3.909 million
Juan CiscomaniAZ-6$2.130 million$915,000
John DuarteCA-13$1.417 million$393,000
David ValadaoCA-22$1.442 million$602,000
Mike GarciaCA-27$1.776 million$2.282 million
Young KimCA-40$2.536 million$843,000
Ken CalvertCA-41$2.485 million$2.234 million
Michelle SteelCA-45$3.023 million$502,000
Anna Paulina LunaFL-13$550,000$151,000
Mariannette Miller-MeeksIA-1$1.585 million$1.125 million
Ashley HinsonIA-2$1.441 millionvery little
Zach NunnIA-3$1.595 million$445,000
Andy HarrisMD-1$925,000not seriously trying yet
John JamesMI-10$2.347 million$1.074 million
Brad FinstadMN-1$384,000nothing at all
Ann WagnerMO-2$2.612 millionnothing so far
Ryan ZinkeMT-1$1.892 million$895,000
Don BaconNE-2 $1.548 million$1.113 million
Tom Kean Jr. NJ-7$2.110 million$838,000
Anthony D'EspositoNY-4$1.248 million$647,000
Mike LawlerNY-17$2.500 million$1.580 million
Marc MolinaroNY-19$1.619 million$1.469 million
Brandon WilliamsNY-22$913,000 $497,000
Lori Chavez-DeRemerOR-5$1.608 million$476,000
Scott PerryPA-10$547,000$327,000
Monica de la CruzTX-15n/a but a sizable lead, probablynot much, yet
Tony GonzalesTX-23$1.948 millionnothing, but.... (see note)
Jen KiggansVA-2$1.505 million$94,000

Note: A GOP challenger to Gonzales has $587,000, which is fantastic. Gonzales, who is for all intents and purposes a Democrat (which is why they aren't bothering to oppose his re-election bid), needs to be eliminated in a primary election.

Unlike the Democrats who are facing potentially stiff competition this year, some Republicans in similar circumstances are coming up short. Predictably, the shortfall is hitting conservative incumbents the hardest: Perry, Luna and Schweikert. Luna for the time being is not in any danger but the other two are severely threatened and have a significant probability of losing. The party establishment won't shed a single tear if that happens.

In addition, Democrat challengers as a group are much better-funded than Republican challengers to Democrat incumbents. We noted last March that the list of vulnerable GOP House members was, on average, more endangered than their liberal counterparts. Campaign finance is a major reason why that statement is true.

The next level of competitive House seats are several of the ones which have no incumbent, primarily due to retirements.

Open seats:

District Current Party Democrat
CA-47D$1.9 million$1.7 million
CO-5Rnothing significant to report
MD-6D$1.2 million nobody with even $100,000
MI-7D $1.1 million$649,000
MI-8Dnothing yet$786,000
NC-6Dpuntingover $1 million
NC-13Dabout the same as NC-6
NC-14Dmight forfeit this one too$1.5 million
NJ-3Dnothing to report yet but Republicans obvious underdogs
NY-3R, for a few more daysover $3 million$1.5 million
VA-7D$1.1 million$800,000
VA-10D7 or 8 viable candidates with $$$1 guy with $187,000

The determination as to which party controls the House after 2024 will be largely -- but not quite entirely -- made in the districts we have highlighted in the 3 tables shown above. First off, black-robed tyrants have already dictated a shift of one seat from Republicans to Democrats in Louisiana, and will likely achieve the same thing in Alabama. Republicans have no chance of holding the Louisiana district and only a small chance of retaining the affected Alabama seat. Similar shenanigans may play out in South Carolina and elsewhere before November.

For example:

New York Democrats, who already had a favorable district map in 2022, are going to gerrymander harder and turn all of those merely "vulnerable" New York GOP-held seats listed above into guaranteed flips. And then try for even more. Same thing in Wisconsin, where Democrats got the map they wanted in 2022 but are going to use their new dictatorial state Supreme Court power to gerrymander the state in their favor to an even greater extent. Specifically in the crosshairs when that happens will be Republicans Derrick Van Orden (WI-3) and Brian Steil (WI-1). Taken all together, these moves will more than offset the undoing of the Democrat gerrymander in North Carolina, where Republicans are set to gain 3 seats -- mainly by simply reclaiming a pair of districts which Democrat judges stole from them in 2020 and continued to hold hostage in 2022.

Here's how things stack up on the Senate side, in any state which could possibly be competitive:

Arizona: ("Independent" incumbent) Kyrsten Sinema (I) $10.596 million, Ruben Gallego (D) $6.542 million, Kari Lake (R) $1.083 million. Neither Sinema as a phony independent nor her equally greasy Democrat colleague are facing any primary opposition and can keep their powder dry until the general election campaign. Lake will face at least one primary opponent, and the Hanoi John McCain wing of the AZGOP will oppose her both in that primary and again in November. Just as they did in 2022.

Florida: (R incumbent) Rick Scott (R) $3.172 million, Debbie Mucarsel-Powell (D) $1.544 million. The best the Rats could do in Florida was to exhume some hyphenated one-term fluke ex-Congresswoman who should lose by at least 10 points to Scott. But the race isn't necessarily going to be as easy as the Republicans seem to think, and note the paltry amount Scott currently has to work with -- in a massive state like Florida -- as compared to what some D incumbents in much smaller states like Nevada and Montana have.

Michigan: (D incumbent) Elissa Slotkin (D) $6.021 million, several hopeless Republicans ~$2.5 million combined. Democrats got off to a quick start here with Debbie Stabenow announcing her retirement very early, and they've parlayed that into a huge war chest. Republicans have stumbled out of the gate, with a pair of failed ex-Congressmen (Mike Rogers, Justin Amash) leading the dreary GOP field. Police chief James Craig has apparently thrown his hat into the ring and should gallop past his rivals shortly. Slotkin is hardly a strong candidate but as things stand now there's every chance that she'll have a Senate career as long as Stabenow somehow did despite accomplishing nothing aside from being a reliable ultra-liberal puppet.

Montana: (D incumbent) Jon Tester (D) $11.223 million, Tim Sheehy (R) $1.266 million. Matt Rosendale (R) has $1.672 million in his House campaign account, but it's looking like he's about to defy his party's liberal establishment and jump into the Senate race! Sheehy, as the presumptive Republican candidate up to now, has been facing a barrage of negative ads from the Tester campaign, along with the negative coverage he gets from the media free of charge to the Democrats. Rosendale's going to get that treatment too of course, but he's run statewide campaigns before and should know exactly what he's up against -- and maybe even how to beat it.

Nevada: (D incumbent) Jacky Rosen (D) $10.650 million, Sam Brown $1.729 million. Brown was runner-up in the GOP Senate primary in 2022, to perennial loser Adam Laxalt. If/when Brown racks up another high-profile loss or two (one is probably coming in November) he can join Laxalt and Danny Tarkanian in the NVGOP Hall of Shame. OTOH, polls keep alleging that Trump is beating President Alzheimer in Nevada, and in the event those polls are accurate then there could be a coattail effect. It may be close, but the Republican record in close elections in Nevada isn't anything to brag about.

Ohio: (D incumbent) Sherrod Brown (D) $14.614 million, 3 GOP challengers combined ~$7.63 million. Another one that's going to be close in November. It's going to be close in next month's primary too. Trump's endorsement of Bernie Moreno should propel him to victory but it may be a very fractious win, with the Frank Larose and -- especially -- Matt Dolan camps possibly failing to unite behind Moreno afterwards. Don't be surprised if Dolan, among others in the GOPe, endorses Brown instead of Moreno or simply sits it out through November.

Pennsylvania: (D incumbent) Bob Casey (D) $9.438 million, Dave McCormick (R) $4.179 million. McCormick can't possibly do any worse than Oz in PA, can he? It's about time for someone to give the Casey pup the boot; incredible though it seems, Empty Suit Casey is actually the dumber of the two PA senators.

Texas: (R incumbent) Ted Cruz (R) $6.176 million, Colin Allred (D) $10.106 million. If you look at only the amounts raised and spent so far, you'd conclude that Cruz is cruz-ing to another Senate term. But as we've mentioned previously, whatever Cruz has spent all those millions on isn't helping him much. Now he's behind in cash-on-hand and is likely to stay there; hopefully that won't matter. One recent poll has Cruz back on top by about 10 points, as he should be, as opposed to another recent (outlier?) poll which had him only up by 2. Some are assuming that Allred is going to have to spend a good portion of his current cash in a contentious Democrat primary. That's not very likely to be necessary; the primary ought to be a breeze, even for a dull candidate whose "celebrity" status is all (aside from lots of $$$$) he has going for him.

Wisconsin: (D incumbent) Tammy Baldwin (D) $8.036 million, the GOP has nothing, not even a viable candidate yet. Just because the filing deadline and primary dates are comparatively late in the election season doesn't mean the Republicans should be wasting time -- but they are. The standard-bearer will almost certainly end up being either Sheriff David Clarke or businessman Eric Hovde. The second tier would be ex-LG Rebecca Kleefisch or another businessman, Kevin Nicholson. None of those four are officially in the race yet, and none are exactly heavyweights though any of them would be acceptable. An ultra-liberal like Baldwin, whose only political "qualification" is her sexual deviance (forgive us for that mental image) should not be unbeatable in a marginal state like this. If this were California, sure. But not Wisconsin.

West Virginia (D incumbent) Alex Mooney (R) $1.766 million (!), Jim Justice (RINO) $1.230 million. The conservative "kid" is out-raising the doddering old moderate who is backed by all of the liberal movers & shakers in the GOP leadership? How is this possible? There's no point in even mentioning Democrat chances here, because they haven't got any. If Mooney wins the primary, no amount of GOPe backstabbing is going to stop him from being elected in November -- which is why they'll spare no expense to stop Mooney in the primary. WV's mega-squish Senator, Shelley Moore Capito, will take the lead on that project. Solidly Republican West Virginia already has one RINO senator; it doesn't need two.

We'll update these races and any other competitive ones as the year goes along. The next batch of FEC reports are due at the end of the first quarter, and of course there will also be non-financial factors which steer the probable outcome in one direction or the other.

Money alone does not determine the outcome of an election. If it did, no Republican would ever win a Senate election except in states where Democrats don't bother trying. Nor would they win anything other than the very safest House districts. But in marginal districts or states, when one candidate (the Democrat) has a sizable financial advantage -- close to 3:1 or greater -- it is rare for the underdog (the Republican) to come out on top. We'll see over the next few months whether these sizable deficits Republicans are facing grow or shrink.


2024 U.S. House Senate Democrat $ advantages

1/28/2024: [Ohio] Trump ally rises as top GOP candidate against Ohio's Sherrod Brown [The Hill]

The headline is premature since no polls (yet) show what the title claims. But it's never too early for the liberal media to begin focusing their attacks on a Republican candidate, and tying one to Trump is -- they think -- a winning strategy. It usually is, but not always. Like just two years ago in Ohio, for example.

Dysfunctional Republicans have a habit of shooting themselves in the foot via divisive primaries in critical statewide elections -- mainly because the liberal wing of the party will never back a conservative in the general election and will often actually work against one; lukewarm support like J.D. Vance got here in 2022 is pretty much all that a non-liberal GOP candidate can expect. The establishment, which controls the all-important purse strings, much prefers a liberal Democrat to a conservative Republican, and in '22 they got their way in critical Senate races in Arizona, Pennsylvania and Alaska, came close in Wisconsin and North Carolina, and only grudgingly made a token effort to help in Ohio.

This sort of fracturing and backstabbing is something Democrats never go for. First of all, they make certain that the field is clear for their chosen candidate in a Senate primary in any winnable state, thus avoiding the divisiveness. Then they support their nominees with the vast resources of their campaign finance money laundries. Deliberately sabotaging one's own nominees is idiotic, which is why only Republicans do that and not Democrats.

In a state which is not winnable for Democrats, like Missouri in 2022, they let the losers battle it out with their own money in the primary to see which one gets the honor of being stomped in the general election. They don't waste time or money on lost causes, while the Republican party, with its comparatively limited resources, starves winnable candidates in order to waste cash on ludicrously unlikely pipe dreams in places like Colorado and Washington (both of which were lost by two touchdowns), as they did in '22.

Also, the Rats do not care how outrageously liberal a candidate is and they quite obviously do not demand that only the most squishy centrist be their party's choice. If a supposedly moderate candidate can't beat a drooling liberal (see the 2022 Senate Democrat primary in Pennsylvania, for example) then the drooler is the nominee and the entire party apparatus immediately gets in line behind him.

Need proof? We've published this data before, but here again are the campaign spending figures for the swing-state Senate races in 2022. All figures shown are in millions of dollars:

StateDemocrat $Republican $
New Hampshire$42.2$4.2
North Carolina$38.9$15.7

In 2022 Senate races in North Carolina and Ohio the anointed Democrats were basically unopposed in their primaries and were very well-supported financially; unlike GOP Senate candidates everywhere, who were drastically outspent. The Rats lost those two races anyway, but did (almost) everything possible to win them.

In the 2020 Senate elections they cleared the field in Colorado, Georgia twice and North Carolina, were fully united, and picked up 3 of those 4 seats.

In 2018 the same applied to Arizona and Nevada and both were successful pickups. Now in 2024 the liberal GOP establishment is, as usual, ramming "moderates" down our throats and marginalizing the supporters of "can't-win" conservatives in West Virginia and Montana and to some extent Ohio, which are the only three states where Republicans have a viable chance of flipping Senate seats from D to R. WV is a sure pickup no matter who the Republicans nominate (they still greatly prefer the squishy old Governor over the young conservative Rep.) and MT and OH are tossups at best.

In Ohio, with pro-abortionist/anti-2A state senator Matt Dolan clearly on the left no matter what fakes to the center his campaign tries, and Bernie Moreno supposedly on the right, Secretary of State Frank Larose is in the middle and will be the deciding factor in the GOP Senate primary -- can he take enough votes to win, and if he doesn't quite accomplish that then which of the other two candidates does he steal the most from to deprive them of the win? Does he split the center-right vote and make Dolan the nominee, or does he split the center-left vote and inadvertently help Moreno? Dolan, a la Nikki Haley, will beg for (and get) support from Democrat interlopers voting in the Republican primary; that is a scheme which he also used in 2022.

The most recent poll in this race is over a month old and favors Moreno -- but with merely 22% for him, and 44% still undecided. None of the three frontrunners are remotely close to pulling away from the others yet, and that may never happen unless one drops out. Larose is currently coming up way short in the money battle, but even Dolan and Moreno combined have less campaign cash-on-hand than liberal incumbent Democrat Sherrod Brown.

Trump endorsed Moreno back in December, a few days before Christmas. Trump's blessing is usually good as gold in a primary (and normally a lead balloon in all but the safest general elections, cherry-picked "winning percentage" aside), and no polls have apparently been taken since that endorsement of Moreno. Bernie ought to get a nice bump in the next one. If or when he becomes the clear favorite however, the media will begin to savage him even harder than the linked article at the top of this commentary does.


2024 Senate Ohio Bernie Moreno for the win!

1/21/2024: 14 House Democrats Vote To Denounce Biden Admin's Open-Borders Policies [Daily Wire]

Photo credit: Getty Images

The vote earlier this week involved "Denouncing the Biden administration's open-borders policies, condemning the national security and public safety crisis along the southwest border, and urging President Biden to end his administration's open-borders policies." Here is a link to the text of the resolution: House Resolution 957.

For those who've forgotten their high school Civics class (or "Social Studies", as the course has been known since being dumbed-down and geared mostly towards liberal propaganda) a House resolution like this one is not binding on anyone, is not a bill, does not go to the President for his signature and can not become a law.

It is merely all for show, which was the whole point.

Republicans thought they were soooo smart here (stupid people often believe they are smart; it's part of what makes them so stupid) and figured they would put 200+ America-hating representatives with a (D) after their names on record during an election year as supporting Dementia Joe's open border policies and his other border-related crimes. A brilliant political maneuver, eh?

Nope. Lucy pulled the football away and the party of Charlie Browns landed on its ass again. This stunt may actually wind up costing them seats in the House in November, by failing to capture several currently Democrat-held districts which were ripe for the taking.

Since there is no substance whatsoever to this resolution, it's all about the propaganda value.

Numerous articles popped up immediately in the liberal media, with titles which contain words like "denounce" and "rebuke" with regard to the Biden administration. The titles sound as if they're documenting some huge legislative setback for the White House and imply that stopping the invasion now has bipartisan support and progress is going to be made.

Hardly. The real story -- the only story -- in these articles concerns praise for the 14 courageous Democrat souls who openly rebuffed their party leaders in the House and stood up to be counted on the side of Mom, Apple Pie and America.

We've written about tactical voting on several occasions here. That occurs when certain Democrat plantation slaves who represent marginal districts in the House of Representatives are permitted to briefly leave the plantation. There is no defiance of authority, there is no courage and there certainly is no sincerity in those tightly choreographed and controlled performances.

These 14 leftists did not march into the office of House minority leader Hakeem Homeboy and register any pleas or issue any demands; they were simply told how they would be allowed to vote on this resolution. The only reason that more Rats were not allowed to openly support this charade was that the puppetmasters did not wish to dilute the "courage" angle in the media; it takes no courage to be part of a mob.

Democrat leaders selected a handful of members who needed to shore up their shaky support at home. A different group of vulnerable Democrats will get its chance to fake to the center during a risk-free vote on some other day.

So what the oh-so-clever Republican majority actually ended up accomplishing here was to give certain potentially endangered Democrats a golden opportunity to grandstand without having to put even one dime's worth of money where their mouths are. Now the obedient liberal media lapdogs portray them as heroes for their courageous inconsequential votes. You can't buy that kind of positive coverage, but the liberal media -- with Republican assistance in this case -- can give it to you for free.

Let's see how these 14 vote when it truly counts for something like the upcoming impeachment attempt of the smarmy incompetent (or just corrupt) Biden administration official pictured at the top of this commentary. There won't be any defections then, just a 100% united Democrat party marching in perfect goosestep as usual.

Here is a table which displays data pertaining to the districts of these valiant heroes. It reveals the reason for this sudden deviation from Democrat orthodoxy.

DistrictCook PVI2022 Margin
Colin AllredTX-32D+1430.8%
Yadira CaraveoCO-8even0.7%
Angie CraigMN-2D+15.3%
Henry CuellarTX-28D+313.4%
Don DavisNC-1D+24.8%
Jared GoldenME-2R+66.2%
Vicente GonzalezTX-34D+98.5%
Greg LandsmanOH-1D+25.6%
Susie LeeNV-3D+14.0%
Jared MoskowitzFL-23D+54.8%
Wiley NickelNC-13R+23.2%
Mary PeltolaAK At-LargeR+810.0%
Marie Gluesenkamp PerezWA-3R+50.8%
Eric SorensenIL-17D+24.0%

You may have noticed that one of these things is not like the others. We'll come back to that.

The districts represented by the Fearless Fourteen are marginal or even Republican-leaning, and 8 of the 14 are represented by freshmen whose prospects for re-election this year are (or were) tenuous.

Some notes about this motley crew:
  • Nickel is not running for re-election in North Carolina because the GOP was finally granted its legal right to redistrict the state (which partisan Democrat judges had illegally thwarted in 2022 after mandating a Democrat gerrymander in 2020) and his district is probably more like R+8 now which would have made him a certain loser.

  • Peltola won via Rigged Choice Voting in Alaska and because of an irrevocable fracture between the Palin supporters and Palin haters in the Alaska Republican party. Rigged Choice Voting remains and so does the Stupid Party. Early indications are that they are not any smarter than they were in 2022, and they're going to split the vote again and let the ditzy Democrat win another undeserved term.

  • MGP won in Washington only because the GOPe refused to support conservative MAGA candidate Joe Kent after he defeated a Trump-hating impeachment RINO (incumbent Jaime Herrera-Beutler) in the primary. Kent is defiantly running again in 2024.

The one Democrat on the above chart who is not from any marginal district is ex-pro football player Colin Allred, who played linebacker for four years with the Tennessee Titans and stood on the sidelines most of the time, starting a total of 2 games. CNN nonetheless refers to him as an "NFL star" because of course they do. The link is good for a laugh.

Allred first won election to the House in the anti-Trump annihilation of 2018 when the Rats gained a few dozen seats in Congress. They gained two of those seats in Texas, in similar suburban districts (one near Houston, and Allred's district near Dallas) which were in the process of going into the toilet demographically. Republican redistricters in 2022 abandoned any hope of gaining back either of these deteriorating areas and conceded them to the Democrats for at least the remainder of this decade. The GOP reluctantly fielded a candidate but didn't spend a single dollar against Allred in '22.

Allred didn't vote for HRes 957 on principle (oh, please) nor was he concerned about his re-election chances because he isn't even running for re-election.

Instead he's Beto O'Rourke 2.0 -- the 2024 celebrity Democrat challenger to Ted Cruz for a Senate seat and the new darling of the Hollywood left and other wealthy lunatics. Allred's voting record in Congress is impeccably liberal, rare fakes (like this one) to the center notwithstanding, and he has the full support of the Democrat Money Machine.

Ted Cruz has faced and defeated unqualified liberal dilettantes before, and he is no stranger to fundraising either. He has raised -- but already spent -- millions of dollars in this election cycle. The Democrat cash registers have hardly opened yet, however Allred has more cash on hand than Cruz.

Whatever Cruz has spent $35,000,000 on so far (and that was just through September), it's not working. A poll from earlier this week shows Cruz up only 42% to 40% over his empty-suit opponent. That same poll shows accurate-looking results in the presidential matchup (Trump over Biden by 8 to 10 points, but under 50% overall) so intelligent people cannot easily shrug it off and the emotionally frail ignore it at their own risk.

Trump is certain to win Texas if he is the nominee, likely with over 50% but surely nothing remotely approaching a landslide. Cruz should receive help from Trump's coattails to drag him across the finish line; he may very well need that help.

The Rats won't be spending much in the Lone Star State on the presidential race because they can't win one of those races here (yet) and more pertinently because they don't need to win it. However they will be going all-in on the Senate election, and more data to back up that fact will be available shortly when the FEC releases its 2023 year-end campaign data.


U.S. House 2024 Senate Texas Ted Cruz vs. "NFL star" GOP saves endangered baby Rats

1/19/2024: [New York] 'She's a killer': Trump eyes Rep. Elise Stefanik as a potential VP pick [NBC News]


We like her aggressive attitude.

Nobody should like her voting record in Congress.

She's been a complete squish through most of her career, and nobody needs to wave that off and bother pretending that it's because "Duh, sheez frum Noo Yawk" and therefore must automatically represent some liberal district in the middle of a ghetto (which would somehow elect a Republican???) or some demographically deteriorating soccer mommy/country club suburb in Westchester County.

Stefanik's district is at the far northern end of the state, far away from all of the above, and is solidly Republican. It never elects a Democrat.

Well, except for a couple of terms starting in a 2009 special election in which establishment putzes like Newt Gingrich tried to foist a left-wing Republican named Dede Scozzafava upon the area. A good conservative, Doug Hoffman, had the support of lots of voters but not the GOPe, so he had to run on the Conservative ballot line only. Her support dropping to almost zero (actually 5.7%), Scozzafava spitefully withdrew from the race at the last minute, endorsed liberal Democrat Bill Owens (thanks again, Newt) and took just enough votes away from Hoffman to prevent him from winning.

Other than that and the two elections which followed, when Owens somehow eked out two more wins before fleeing, you have to go back to the 1800s or earlier to find a Democrat U.S. House member from this part of New York. And you may not even find one then.

In this district Stefanik doesn't need to run shrieking hysterically to the left in order to get elected. But she does so anyway. Or at least she used to -- that may be changing.

Stefanik's voting record has taken a noticeable jump to the right in recent years, but that is not as impressive an accomplishment as it may sound; we'll explain below. In her first two terms (2015-2018) she voted the conservative position on key issues 37% of the time which is an abysmal rating for any Republican.

In her next term at the end of the first Trump administration (2019-2020) she improved to 58% which is somewhat less abysmal but still quite weak.

From 2021-2022 Stefanik voted the right way 73% of the time. All of those percentages are based on key votes as determined by the American Conservative Union (ACU). They have not yet released their data for 2023, but we here at RightDataUSA.com have identified 34 key votes from last year -- a greater number than the ACU normally focuses on per year -- and Stefanik grades out at 88% (!). She will probably get a correspondingly high figure from the ACU when they get around to calculating one for 2023.

Why is Stefanik's improvement not as impressive as it looks? During the Trump and Biden administrations, the Democrats have become more polarized -- and polarizing -- than ever before. They vote in perfect lockstep on nearly every issue except for when certain members are allowed to dissent for tactical purposes. In response most Republicans, even ones with long-term liberal tendencies like Elise Stefanik, have found themselves voting in opposition to Democrats as a bloc too.

As a result, Republican ratings have become almost as extreme as Democrat ratings. Nearly all House Democrats have conservative ratings near 0%. Anything even as high as 10% is rare (it's mainly those "tactical" votes).

Democrat polarization has been customary for decades and is not something that only began with Trump in the White House; their extremism gained momentum with the extinction of that species of politician known as "Conservative Democrat". Even "Moderate Democrat" is highly endangered and practically extinct now. Its population is down to a small handful.

But "Liberal Republican" and "Moderate Republican" have generally been as healthy as ever. There are GOP Senators like Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski and Light Loafers Lindsey Graham who vote more with the Democrats than with their own party. Even Mitt Romney doesn't do that.

Such a thing as a Democrat voting mostly with the GOP is unheard of. No, not even Joe Manchin at his grandstanding finest; he's not even close to doing that anymore. "Independent" Kyrsten Sinema? Get real. Sinema voted 95% of the time with her fellow Democrats in 2023. She's a total IINO (Independent in Name Only).

However many Republicans are clustering in the 90-100% conservative range on key votes at a rate higher than usual. This is a very recent development and does not even go back as far as the Trump days. All of that notwithstanding, Stefanik is still quite an unusual case. It's as if she's strategically trying to position herself as a VP candidate by showing that she can act as a conservative if necessary.

Hers is not a normal progression for a member of Congress. A Republican from a relatively safe House district often starts out as an enthusiastic conservative bent on keeping the campaign promises he made. As time goes on the Representative normally caves in to the Uniparty establishment and moves to the left -- "going along to get along" -- otherwise career advancement is impossible.

Not only that, if someone sticks to his principles he is merely asking for disillusionment and frustration: frustration as he sees his legislative objectives watered down or failing entirely; frustration as he sees even his most patriotic colleagues corrupted by lobbyists and big-$$$$$ anti-conservative campaign contributors; and frustrated by that Beltway Culture which keeps him permanently on the outside unless he waives those principles he brought to D.C. with him -- "no fancy Georgetown cocktail party invitations for you, Neanderthal!"

Furthermore, with rare exceptions such as Jim Jordan, you do not get to be in the Republican Party leadership or advance towards it unless you are a squish. Stefanik currently holds a minor leadership position as Chair of the House Republican Conference, which may not sound like much but it makes her the 4th-ranking Republican in the House.

Trump and the GOP have lately realized that their appeal to urban and suburban racists and femiNazis is limited if they insist upon a presidential ticket consisting of two White males. There is a significant probability that Trump will select a female as a running mate, or one will be selected for him.

Photo credit: J. Scott Applewhite/AP; Leah Millis/Reuters

Even given her recent rightward trend and her gender, that hardly means Stefanik is the best possible option. [Sacrilegious though it is, we've liked Tulsi Gabbard for a while despite her congressional voting record -- we feel she has "evolved". But we don't completely trust her.]

It should be noted that a truly conservative woman probably need not apply for the position. The Republicans aren't going to make that Sarah Palin "mistake" again, regardless of the fact (which the GOPe refuses to accept) that the only reason John McCain got any conservative votes at all was the presence of Palin on the ticket. That plus the sheer odiousness of the Democrat puppet which opposed him in '08.

There is likely a desire to select a female VP strategically, i.e. one from a liberal state, in the completely futile hope that her presence will flip that liberal state's electoral votes to Trump. If someone along those lines is absolutely necessary, better to make a choice from a critical swing state than one from a totally lost cause like New York or even Hawaii. Are any ladies from Pennsylvania, Michigan or Wisconsin available?

Working against this supposedly clever approach is the fact that the GOP has never learned the lesson that tokenism and pandering pay off only for Democrats, not Republicans. For example, when they nominate black candidates for statewide office in anything other than the most Republican states, the strategy almost always fails. If a non-White -- or non-male -- is truly the best possible candidate for a Senate seat in 2024, like James Craig (Michigan) or David Clarke (Wisconsin, but not yet officially in the race) then so be it. Always go with your best regardless of race or sex; anyone except a liberal would agree that's how society should work. However if the minority is not truly the best candidate, then this tactic is truly idiotic.

Of course the voters are the ones who pick the candidates, but the Republican party has a lot to say about who is encouraged to run, who is NOT encouraged to run, and who gets the logistical and financial support if they do run (and, of course, who does NOT get that support). Most of the time the voters merely select from the choices the party offers. Insurgents, normally conservative challengers, are unwelcome and are pushed aside from important statewide elections whenever possible. If one of them happens to win a primary election against the wishes of the establishment, they are hung out to dry in the general. You only need to look back to 2022 for considerable evidence of this.

The theory that "urban" (i.e. racist) voters will leave the Democrat plantation in significant numbers and vote for a black statewide Republican nominee is patently false in the vast majority of cases. If a black Republican gets elected statewide, e.g. Tim Scott in South Carolina, he does so almost exclusively on the votes of Republicans and not Democrats. If an "Uncle Tom" GOP candidate needs Democrat votes to win statewide.... he loses, simple as that.

As far as Trump's VP goes, there has been considerable chatter in the liberal media about Stefanik over the past few days. In an attempt to sow even further dissention and get Trump supporters sniping at each other, they are now even floating trial balloons for the most objectionable possible VP nominee short of Trump picking Big Mike Obama for the job. Or Governor Krispy Kreme.

In the end, some adult in the room needs to select the best person for the job regardless of their melanin content or genitalia. The best person is probably not Elise Stefanik and it's sure as hell not Nimrod Randhawa. Hint: if those who control the media approve of whoever it is, it's definitely a bad choice.


Trump 2024 Veep Elise Stefanik New York Anybody but Nimrod

1/19/2024: [New York] Third District Poll: Democrats with Edge to Pick up Congressional Seat [Emerson]

Photo credit: WABC

On Thursday, Emerson College released numerous 2024 election polls including one for the mid-February special election in New York's 3rd Congressional District. That election was necessitated when freshman Republican George Santos was expelled from Congress last December at the behest of his own party, so as not to serve as a distraction from Republican efforts (to lose?) in November.

The special election pits liberal Democrat Thomas Suozzi, a former Congressman, against Nassau county legislator Mazi Melesa Pilip. Suozzi opted to run for Governor in 2022 rather than seek re-election to the 3rd district; Suozzi knew full well that he had zero chance of winning the Democrat gubernatorial primary, and finished a dismal 3rd with only 13% of the vote. So why did he even run?

Pilip has a fascinating background: she is of Ethiopian-Israeli descent and moved from Ethiopia to Israel at the age of 12. She later joined the Israeli Army as a paratrooper. She is the mother of 7 children and immigrated from Israel to Great Neck (Long Island). Although allegedly still a registered Democrat, she ran on the Republican and Conservative tickets in 2021 and won a seat in the Nassau County legislature in a heavily Democrat district.

The Emerson poll, which was taken from January 13-15, has Suozzi only narrowly ahead of Pilip, 45% to 42% among registered voters. However: among likely voters Suozzi's margin increases to 14 points (51% to 37%). This reflects typical Democrat motivation and organization in an important special election, and reflects typical lack of same in the Republican party.

As if to prove the above statement, national Democrats wasted no time in fundraising or attacking the Republican candidate. It was announced in early January that the Rats had purchased $5.2 million worth of local advertising, and in fact ads supporting Suozzi (and hating Pilip) are saturating the airwaves; in contrast, national Republicans had reserved the paltry sum of $0.2 million in advertising as of January 2.

The local liberal media has rolled out the red carpet for Suozzi by offering to schedule and broadcast as many as four rigged debates in his favor. Pilip has astutely declined most of the invitations to those "gotcha" sessions.

Recent history: After liberal Democrats had been in control locally in Nassau County for years, Republicans began to claw their way back in 2021. In 2022 they captured all four Long Island congressional districts including the two Democrat-oriented districts in Nassau County (CD-3 is one of those). In 2023 Republicans reclaimed all significant county-level offices on Long Island, and so would appear to have momentum there.

Santos was expelled from Congress mainly because his skittish New York colleagues feared he would break that momentum and cause their fluke victories in 2022 to be reversed in 2024. That's very likely to happen anyway and always was likely, Santos notwithstanding. Even if George Santos had never existed in Congress, a GOP bloodbath in New York in 2024 was inevitably in the cards based on the narrow upset outcomes in 2022 in several districts, and a new hyper-partisan Democrat gerrymander which will be implemented before November.

Many have suggested that we never should have reached this point, and the GOP should have supported Santos instead of shunning him -- just like the Rats support their sleazebags (such as Senator Menendez) no matter what.

They support them unless there's something to be gained by a "loss" like when they jettisoned Al Franken (D-MN) in 2017, knowing he would definitely be replaced by another Democrat. Then the Rats could virtuously claim that all other Democrats in office were squeaky clean while they slandered Republican judge Roy Moore who was running for the Senate in Alabama at the time (and lost). Moore faced similar allegations to Franken. The difference is that the charges against Moore were false. Five years after that election, far too late, Moore won his defamation lawsuit.

Comparing the Santos situation to Menendez is apples and oranges. If Menendez goes, the liberal Democrat Governor of New Jersey immediately appoints a liberal Democrat replacement (just like what happened in Minnesota with Franken) and New Jersey then compliantly votes for a Democrat whenever the special election comes around. There is nearly zero risk if the Rats ever do the right thing and throw Menendez into the nearest dumpster.

However when Santos left, it opened up a valuable House seat in a district that voted for Biden by 8 points in 2020 (using current district lines), and one where Democrats outnumber Republicans by 11%. There's considerable risk that Santos will be replaced by a Democrat, but the liberal GOP establishment calculated that there was greater risk in allowing Santos to remain. For every Democrat crime that comes to light (rare though such exposure is), the leftists could always say "Oh yeah, but what about Santos???"

More polling details: Biden is hideously unpopular in NY-3 (59% disapproval, 26 points under water) and Governor Hochul (66% disapproval) fares even worse. People in this district wouldn't cross the street to spit on her if she were on fire. Actually, that might be fun to see. However, the one politician who is way more unpopular than both of those is Santos (83% unfavorable rating).

This election is meant to be a referendum on Santos. Period.

The GOP candidate is a good one, and Suozzi probably inspires about as much enthusiasm as Basement Biden does though he does have name recognition, tons of money and lots of hateful (but influential) ads running 24/7. If the current polls are accurate to any degree, instead of an 85% chance of losing this seat, maybe the probability of Republican defeat is down to around 65% now?

The media and other liberals insist that the voters in New York's 3rd Congressional District be ashamed of their earlier election of Santos and demand that those voters cleanse their consciences by going for the Democrat this time around and in November as well. We'll see in about a month if they obey those demands.

Will a plurality of the voters (however slight that plurality might be) let this election outcome be what the Democrats and the media want? Hopefully not, but probably so.


U.S. House 2024 New York Special election The 'shame' of the Republicans

[More commentary]