Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Republican Wins Iowa’s 2nd District Race by Just Six Votes, Flips Seat

Republican Wins Iowa’s 2nd District Race by Just Six Votes, Flips Seat

Marianette Miller-Meeks: “It is the honor of a lifetime to be elected to serve the people of eastern and southern Iowa.”

https://youtu.be/quIu1WHMQMg

The race for Iowa’s second district came down to a razor thin margin. Republican candidate Marianette Miller-Meeks won by a lead of just six votes. This is a flip, as the seat was previously held by a retiring Democrat.

This is an excellent reminder of the importance of vote integrity. A handful of votes decided this contest.

Zachary Oren Smith reports at the Iowa City Press-Citizen:

End of recount maintains Miller-Meeks lead in Iowa 2nd District U.S. House race; margin just 6 votes

Republican Mariannette Miller-Meeks remains atop Iowa’s 2nd District congressional race despite a Saturday recount in Clinton County that eroded her already single-digit lead to just six votes.

The Clinton County tally concluded a recount in the 24-county southeast Iowa district, which extends from Jasper and Marion counties in the Des Moines metro to Davenport, and includes Iowa City and Burlington. The vote will go to a state canvassing board Monday to be certified, which would make Miller-Meeks the official winner.

In a statement, Hart’s campaign manager, Zach Meunier, did not say whether the campaign will file a legal challenge in the race, the closest House election in the nation. That would trigger a review by a judicial panel and cast continued uncertainty over the outcome.

“When we began this recount Rita Hart was down by 47 votes,” Meunier said. “As more ballots have been counted, the margin has narrowed dramatically and is now down to a mere 6 votes — making this the closest Congressional race in recent history, and one of the very closest in the last hundred years.

They don’t get much closer than this.

Miller-Meeks released this statement:

Messages of congratulations are already flowing in:

It’s amazing how well Republican House candidates did in this election, particularly women.

The pollsters got it so wrong.

Featured image via YouTube.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Elmariachigringo | November 29, 2020 at 10:43 am

Congratulations to Representative Elect Miller-Meeks. Triple M would not be denied! That’s 12 seat flips so far for Republicans. Through 2020 Census redistricting alone, we ought to be able to get at least 10 more. Lots of Dems will retire before 2022, more will get tapped for administration jobs. Lots of special elections. It might just be possible to flip 5 or 6 more seats by this time next year and get the majority back before the elections. Regardless, January 2023 we start the impeachment.

    What “administration jobs” will Dems be tapped for? Trump had enough problems with the RINOs and GOPe types in his first administration, and hopefully won’t make things worse by bringing Dems into his second.

Assuming that the six vote lead post recount holds this is an example of solid planning. A vacated seat, retiring d, in a purple to lean red district. Find an unimpeachable candidate, rally around them using the primary to organize volunteers and gotv efforts in a dry run. Refine the campaign to the general election, stay on message.

As to those in the ‘election fraud to the extent it exists is de minimus and couldn’t effect an election outcome’….what say you? Here is the unicorn you claim doesn’t exist.

Even if this wasn’t true we should always keep in mind that every illegally cast ballot cancels and off sets a legal ballot. Every illegally cast ballot disenfranchised a legal vote.

When the de minimus crowd agrees with that reality, rolls up their sleeves and tightens their armor to join us in roofing out election fraud and the systems/mechanisms which make it likely, then we will welcome your voice and assistance. Until then the de minimus crowd is choosing to aid the fraud.

    Not to disagree with anything you say, but this race is no exemplar of integrity of the vote. It simply suggests the Democrats underestimated the number of votes they had to fabricate. As I said below, hold the champagne. There has to be a car somewhere with a trunk full of votes that will deliver the seat.

      mailman in reply to lichau. | November 29, 2020 at 12:11 pm

      I was thinking that because Democrats were focusing their entire energy on overcoming 80 million votes for Trump that they couldn’t sort out these smaller races because, one they were caught short by just how much fraud they had to commit and 2, because of number 1 didn’t have time to sort out down ballot voting.

      CorkyAgain in reply to lichau. | November 29, 2020 at 12:50 pm

      You missed his point.

      In this race, only seven (more) illegal votes would have been enough to deny the rightful winner her victory, disproving the notion that election fraud doesn’t matter unless it involves thousands of bogus ballots.

I’m sure the left will concede and nothing further will be said. sarc

Hold the champagne. They will recount again until they get it correct–i.e. the Democrat wins.
Can anyone point to a recount that DIDN’T have the Democrat gaining votes? Funny how that works.

    James B. Shearer in reply to lichau. | November 29, 2020 at 12:08 pm

    “Can anyone point to a recount that DIDN’T have the Democrat gaining votes? Funny how that works.”

    Trump gained 1274 votes in the first Georgia recount but still trails by 12,284 votes. This according to Wikipedia, a lot of the news stories are annoyingly vague about the numbers. A second recount is currently being conducted.

    I think Democrats tend to gain a little in general because their voters are more likely to need provisional or affidavit ballots (which have to be verified) or to mess up their ballots in ways that can’t be machine counted but are still legal votes.

Truthfully , so many women in power have not been what I had hoped they would be..

But always glad a Democrat got beaten

    lichau in reply to gonzotx. | November 29, 2020 at 11:06 am

    As an ancient redneck troglodyte, I mostly agree that too many women haven’t delivered what we would hope. My main caveat is that virtually ALL men get corrupted by The Swamp.

    “He (she) went to Washington to do good and did very well indeed.”

      snopercod in reply to lichau. | November 29, 2020 at 2:16 pm

      You think YOU are a trogolodyte? Hell, I’d repeal the 19th Amendment if I had the power. Most women think with their ovaries, not their brains (Present company excepted, of course).

        LibraryGryffon in reply to snopercod. | November 29, 2020 at 3:05 pm

        As a woman, I’d vote with you to repeal it. At least then I wouldn’t have to listen to the dems telling me to vote with my lady parts, or assuming that the ability to get free abortions until after birth is the only thing I believe is important.

interesting career path:

‘Miller-Meeks was born in Herlong, California in 1955.[1] She enlisted in the United States Army at the age of 18 and served for 24 years, including as a nurse, physician, and member of the United States Army Reserve. She retired at the rank of Lieutenant colonel.”

The Friendly Grizzly | November 29, 2020 at 11:30 am

A woman, with a hyphenated name. I have a less than warm and fuzzy feeling about this…

    Eastwood Ravine in reply to The Friendly Grizzly. | November 29, 2020 at 12:40 pm

    I wouldn’t get too bent out of shape over people, women in particular, who have hyphenated surnames. It could be done for many reasons, I see it less of a feminist thing and more of a family thing; many people are extremely proud of their genealogy. They want as many incidences of their family in the record as possible.

    If this were the seat that flipped the House from D to R, and it’s not that far off, I wouldn’t care how many hyphens she used.

    amatuerwrangler in reply to The Friendly Grizzly. | November 29, 2020 at 6:11 pm

    Yes, the reasons for the hyphen differ. Besides family name it is for professional licensing reasons. She most likely was a single woman when she entered the Army, as Miller. While in the Army she achieved certifications as nurse and physician, either as Miller, or if she married sometime along the way she became Meeks. The process to get new names on professional licenses can be difficult, so some women retain the name they had when licensed to avoid unpleasant encounters with the bureaucrats.

    This is, of course, strictly conjecture on my part, except about the dealing with the bureaucrats.

So the Democrats running for the House of Representative did not win EVEN ONE swing seat but Biden won in a landslide!

    The Friendly Grizzly in reply to Viator. | November 29, 2020 at 3:49 pm

    You weren’t seriously questioning the results, are you?

    /

    Eastwood Ravine in reply to Viator. | November 29, 2020 at 5:03 pm

    There was only one other “winning” presidential candidate that had worse coattails down-ticket. That was Kennedy in 1960. It’s common knowledge that Kennedy-era Democrat party stole that election from Nixon.

    This time we knew within the first 24 hours after the election that the Democrats stole it.

      That’s not even really the same thing, as there was no incumbent.

      Never in the history of United States Presidents, has an incumbent President gained seats in Congress and lost re-election.

      Literally, NEVER. It’s not even close. Losing incumbent Presidents usually lost 30+ House seats when they lost.

      When King Barry The Annointed One was re-elected in 2012, Democrats only picked up 8 seats. When W Bush won in 2004, he only picked up 3 seats. When Clinton won in 1992 they only gained 2 seats.

      When Reagan won in an unambiguous landslide, Republicans picked up 16 seats.

      So far, Republicans under Trump have gained 13 seats. That’s the biggest gain for an incumbent since Reagan.

      But sure, Trump ‘lost’.

        Eastwood Ravine in reply to Olinser. | November 30, 2020 at 12:18 am

        That’s a great point, I’m inclined to favor your point that isn’t an exact comparison. But I would also point out, that like George H. W. bush 28 years later, Nixon was essentially running as as a third term for his party in the White House.

      Nixon knew right away.

      But in classic surrender monkey GOPe fashion, he decided that he shouldn’t contest the fraud because it would reflect poorly on the US election system.

        Eastwood Ravine in reply to Olinser. | November 30, 2020 at 12:24 am

        In the middle of the Cold War, Nixon may have been right not to contest the election. Nixon was a lot of things, but he was a Cold Warrior.

        Milhouse in reply to Olinser. | November 30, 2020 at 2:01 am

        Oh, please. He didn’t contest it because he knew there was just as much Republican fraud in downstate Illinois as there was Democrat fraud in Chicago, and in a contest that would come out.

I cannot believe such a flip will stand as long as there is a Democrat with a Xerox machine anywhere in the district.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend