2022 U.S. Congressional (and Other) Elections

[Voronwë the Faithful]

In part because of some hypocritical dirty tricks by Democrats who helped Gibbs win the primary because they thought he would be easier to beat in November. I think that is just wrong.

[Dave_LF]

In part because of some hypocritical dirty tricks by Democrats who helped Gibbs win the primary because they thought he would be easier to beat in November. I think that is just wrong.

Agreed. If I still lived in Meijer's district, I probably would have taken the GOP ballot and voted for him.

I could be talked into playing dirty tricks to take out someone like, say, John Gibbs, but to punish a person for doing the right thing simply because he's not on your team isn't just unconscionable, it's idiotic.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Meanwhile, in Arizona, it is looking likely that Trump-back election-deniers will win the GOP nominations for all four state-wide races: Senate, Governor, Attorney General, and Secretary of State. The latter is particularly important because the Secretary of State has a lot of power over how elections are conducted, and the GOP candidate, Rep. Mark Finchem, wants to give the legislature power to overturn the vote of the people.

538 is now giving the Democrats a 57% chance of keeping the Senate, the highest percentage thus far. Even in the House, their chances of retaining control has ticked up slightly, to 17%. Which at least is not no chance!

In the Kansas vote, with 99% of the votes counted, an extraordinary 59% have voted to preserve the state's constitutional right to reproductive choice, versus 41% voting to eliminate it. In a vote that was widely expected to be nip and tuck that is an amazing result, and stems from a much higher than expected turnout. Whether that will translate nationwide to a higher turnout among Democrats concerned about the overturning of Roe v. Wade remains to be seen.

[N.E. Brigand]

In part because of some hypocritical dirty tricks by Democrats who helped Gibbs win the primary because they thought he would be easier to beat in November. I think that is just wrong.

I agree Peter Meijer not only would be a stronger Republican candidate than John Gibbs in the general election, but that the U.S. would be better off having Meijer than Gibbs in Congress. And I agree that one party meddling in another party's primary process is a dirty trick.

That said, gerrymandering is an even worse dirty trick, and Republicans nationally won on that front, so I can understand why Democrats felt the need to try this. At this time, both moves are permissible parts of the U.S. political process. And the U.S. would be better off having Democrats control the House than having Republicans control the House even if one of them is Peter Meijer.

Like gerrymandering, cross-party interference comes with risks. Gerrymanders are very helpful in years when the elections will be reasonably close, but in rebounding wave years, gerrymanders backfire on the party that designed them. Likewise the danger of influencing another party's primaries to assist the weaker general election candidate (and analysts do say that Gibbs' victory last night does give Democrats the edge in November) is that that person actually wins, you may have helped someone dangerous get into Congress.

But Meijer's defeat is ultimately the fault not of Democrats but of the Republican voters in his district. According to this report at Fox News, the House Democratic caucus's dirty tricks largely consisted of spending a lot of money for a Congressional race -- more than John Gibbs's own campaign spent -- to air a television campaign ad with this message:

John Gibbs is too conservative for West Michigan. Handpicked by Trump to run for Congress, Gibbs called Trump "the greatest president," and worked in Trump’s administration with Ben Carson. Gibbs has promised to push that same conservative agenda in Congress. A hard line against immigrants at the border and so-called "patriotic" education in our schools. The Gibbs/Trump agenda is too conservative for West Michigan.

As far as I can see, all facts stated in that ad are true, and I certainly agree with the opinions it expresses. And if a Republican who saw that ad was thereby convinced to vote for Gibbs rather than Meijer, whose fault is that?

[Dave_LF]

Back in Michigan, one Trumpist, election-denying candidate is refusing to concede the gubernatorial primary to another. It would be funny if it wasn’t all so terrible.

https://www.wzzm13.com/article/news/pol ... 6004cf7e84

[N.E. Brigand]

In the Kansas vote, with 99% of the votes counted, an extraordinary 59% have voted to preserve the state's constitutional right to reproductive choice, versus 41% voting to eliminate it. In a vote that was widely expected to be nip and tuck that is an amazing result, and stems from a much higher than expected turnout. Whether that will translate nationwide to a higher turnout among Democrats concerned about the overturning of Roe v. Wade remains to be seen.

This issue was thought to be much closer, and the "Yes" position, i.e., the vote to change the state's constitution to remove protections for abortion, was expected to prevail. The only poll I've seen, released two weeks ago, found 47% of Kansans favored removing a woman's right to choose from the constitution, 43% opposed doing so, and 10% were undecided. If all 10% went to "No," that would have resulted in a 6-point victory. That the result was an 18-point victory indicates that at least as regards abortion, people are not happy with recent events. This is a state that Donald Trump won by 15 points, so that means a significant number of his voters are pro-choice -- which makes it all the more baffling that they made it possible for him to get Roe overturned!

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Many of them didn't realize that was what they were doing.

[N.E. Brigand]

This polling analyst points out that the results in Washington state's primaries, including party turnout share, are frequently predictive of general election results. If the pattern holds, then last night's results portend a very close national race this year with Democrats perhaps having a slight edge. Obviously that's contrary to the usual mid-term election trend, but it is in line with several national polls. And yet, given gerrymandering, Republicans likely would still control Congress in that situation.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Nate Cohn is the New York Times's Chief Political Analyst. This is what he says about the Kansas vote:

[RoseMorninStar]

In the Kansas vote, with 99% of the votes counted, an extraordinary 59% have voted to preserve the state's constitutional right to reproductive choice, versus 41% voting to eliminate it. In a vote that was widely expected to be nip and tuck that is an amazing result, and stems from a much higher than expected turnout. Whether that will translate nationwide to a higher turnout among Democrats concerned about the overturning of Roe v. Wade remains to be seen.

This issue was thought to be much closer, and the "Yes" position, i.e., the vote to change the state's constitution to remove protections for abortion, was expected to prevail. The only poll I've seen, released two weeks ago, found 47% of Kansans favored removing a woman's right to choose from the constitution, 43% opposed doing so, and 10% were undecided. If all 10% went to "No," that would have resulted in a 6-point victory. That the result was an 18-point victory indicates that at least as regards abortion, people are not happy with recent events. This is a state that Donald Trump won by 15 points, so that means a significant number of his voters are pro-choice -- which makes it all the more baffling that they made it possible for him to get Roe overturned!

It pains me to say this, but I think there is a quiet but sizeable segment of conservative voters who have realized the full ramifications of Roe and what it might mean for men/their sons and how it may affect their opportunities among other things. Difficulty perhaps recruiting college football players, military assignments, etc.. There is also cost, having a baby in the US is very expensive and without national health care who pays those bills? There is not only maternity, labor and delivery costs, but also I would assume costs for assistance will rise.

[Snowdog]

I get the best U.S. election coverage right here on House of Fire! As a U.S. Citizen I still vote in my home state elections even though I haven't been residing there in some time. Fortunately, Washington State is pretty good at assuring a citizen's right to vote, and has a pretty solid electrol infrastructure. So too does King County (Seattle and vicinity) which handles the distribution of ballots for me. But alas, my last residency address at my parent's house in South Seattle) is in a solid Democrat congressional district (9th), and my primary vote was limited to the senate, congress, state legislative seats, and Secretary of State. It was sad to see Wyman retire as Secretary of State. Sh ewas a 'good' republican when it meant something. Nowadays, a 'good' republican are just ones who don't towe the trumpline of stolen elections.

And how about Kansas. Despite putting the referendum on the primary ballot instead of the general ballot in November, and making the yes/no decision confusing (No means keep the rights, Yes means get rid of them), and some deliberate confising literature being sent out by certain forced birth PACs, it was a great turnout! One can hope that sense will prevail, but then, I lost all hope in sense prevailing when trump was 'elected' in 2016.

Love reading everyone's updates here.

[N.E. Brigand]

Not even this will make me like Dick Cheney:

[RoseMorninStar]

I was reading an article in NYT which read, in part:

(...)
There is little reason to think that this is what the people of Wisconsin want, but it’s not clear if they can pass a law to change it, because state legislative maps are drawn in a way that gives Republicans an overwhelming advantage. According to a University of Wisconsin Law School analysis, if Democrats and Republicans got the same number of votes, Republicans would win 64.8 percent of State Senate seats, and Democrats around 35.2 percent
(....)

This is so discouraging. And it is how we end up with 'representatives' like Ron Johnson.

[N.E. Brigand]

Mehmet Oz, the Republican candidate for Senate from Pennsylvania (even though he mostly lives in New Jersey; only one of the ten properties that Oz owns is even in the Keystone State) apparently thinks he's running to be Pennsylvania's governor. Speaking on the right-wing Newsmax channel today in an effort to defend himself from criticism for a weird video he made in April in which among other things he garbled the name of a well-known Pennsylvania grocery story chain, he said today that he was "exhausted," that there have been times when "I've gotten my kids' names wrong as well" (presumably another Republican candidate, Herschel Walker, can relate to that one), and he doesn't believe that such mistakes are "a measure of someone's ability to lead the Commonwealth."

But he's not running to "lead the Commonwealth" -- that's the job of the governor -- but to represent it in Congress.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

SMH.

[N.E. Brigand]

It's just one survey, but the the latest poll from Marquette University finds that in Wisconsin, the Democratic challenger Mandela Barnes leads the incumbent Republican Senator Ron Johnson in his bid for reelection by a 51%-44% margin. The same poll in June found Barnes leading by 2%.

The party that doesn't control the White House generally does better in mid-term elections, incumbents should always be deemed to have the advantage, we're still more than two months out from election day, and probably both polls skew to the left -- as was found to be true in many swing state polls in the 2016 and 2020 elections -- but I think this at least suggests the race will be much closer than anyone expected as recently as this spring.

Edited to add: Also, polls in 2016 indicated that Johnson, then the challenger, would lose to Sen. Russ Feingold by an average of 2.6%. Instead Johnson won by 3.4%. The last Marquette poll that year showed Feingold leading by just 1 point, but the Marquette's August 2018 poll had Feingold leading by 11 points. So a lot can change, and the Marquette polls probably skews 4-5 points toward Democrats.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Based on large part on that poll (probably), 538 has moved the odds in that race from 67-33 in favor of Johnson to 61-39. That would be a huge pickup for the Democrats.

The 538 overall odds keep inching into the Democrats favor. They now give the Dems a 63% chance of holding the Senate, and a 22% chance of holding the House.

[RoseMorninStar]

Russ Feingold was a fine representative. It's a real shame he lost. Ron Johnson has got to go.

[N.E. Brigand]

Today Rep. Cawthorn posted a bizarre and perhaps Anti-Semitic message on Instagram that concludes as follows:

"I am on a mission now to expose those who say and promise one thing yet legislate and work towards another, self-profiteering globalist goal. The time for gentile politics as usual has come to an end. It's time for the rise of the new right, it's time for Dark MAGA to truly take command. We have an enemy to defeat, but we will never be able to defeat them until we defeat the cowardly and weak members of our own party. Their days are numbered. We are coming."

At first I thought "gentile politics" was a typo for "gentle politics," but given that it seems to be contrasted with "self-profiteering globalist," I wonder.

Business Insider reports that Rep. Cawthorn "failed to properly disclose up to $950,000 in cryptocurrency trades, including 'Let's Go Brandon' coin, bitcoin, and ethereum."

Madison Cawthorn's campaign has yet to file its financial report with the Federal Election Commission for the second quarter of 2022; that filing was due a week ago. A new report in the Daily Beast suggests that the reason is that "Cawthorn’s campaign ended in a financial collapse, covering costs with donor money it wasn’t allowed to touch unless he won the primary . . . he owes donors hundreds of thousands, but he’s broke."

Congressman Madison Cawthorn personally lost more than $500,000 funding his failed reelection campaign and appears to have violated campaign finance law by using money in the primary that was specifically raised for the general election (in which he will not be on the ballot).

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Nate Silver explains why despite currently leading in the polling average, Tim Ryan has an extremely uphill battle in the Ohio senate race against J.D. Vance.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ca ... nate-race/