Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Republicans Pick Up Seats in Arizona, Iowa, and Michigan

Republicans Pick Up Seats in Arizona, Iowa, and Michigan

Eli Crane and Juan Ciscomani flipped AZ seats, Zach Nunn flipped an IA seat, and John James won a redrawn Michigan district.

The Republican Party flipped seats in Arizona and Iowa and won an open district in Michigan.

Eli Crane Wins AZ-02

Republican Eli Crane ousted Democrat incumbent Rep. Tom O’Halleran in Arizona’s 2nd Congressional District.

Officials considered O’Halleran “the most endangered incumbent in the House Democratic caucus.”

Crane, a former Navy SEAL, received President Donald Trump’s endorsement. He concentrated on the economy, border security, and no Critical Race Theory.

O’Halleran represents the First District but chose to run for the newly redrawn Second District even though it favors Republicans.

Juan Ciscomani: AZ-06

Republican Juan Ciscomani, a senior adviser to Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey, defeated Democrat Kirsten Engel, flipping Arizona’s 6th District:

Ciscomani is a senior advisor to incumbent GOP Gov. Doug Ducey and campaigned on a close working relationship with border patrol, border sheriffs, ranchers, and residents. The Arizona native also serves as vice chair of the Arizona-Mexico Commission. Prior to running for Congress, Ciscomani served as a senior program development specialist at the University of Arizona and was vice president of outreach for the Tucson Hispanic Chamber of Commerce.

Democratic Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick, who represents the former 2nd district, is retiring. That district became this 6th district due to redrawing:

The district was redrawn by reconfiguring its previous boundaries in the former 2nd District in redistricting following the 2020 Census, extending its arms to Republican-leaning suburbs like Marana, and excluding Democratic strongholds like Bisbee, giving Republicans an edge.

Zach Nunn Wins IA-03

The Republicans control all House seats in Iowa.

Republican Zach Nunn defeated Democrat incumbent Rep. Cindy Axne to represent IA-03:

Nunn declared victory at around 11:30 p.m. Tuesday night, before the race was officially called. Nunn, a state legislator, won with 50.3% of the vote to Axne’s 49.7%, a separation of slightly more than 2,000 votes.

“We’re going to work with people not just across the aisle, but every Iowan who wants to make a dedicated move to make our state better — and by result, our country better,” Nunn said to a crowd at a Republican election night event.

Axne conceded and thanked her supporters Wednesday afternoon.

“Representing Iowa’s Third Congressional District has been one of the best opportunities of my life and I hope Zach Nunn understands the responsibility of this office and will continue my hard work to uplift Iowans’ voices in Washington, D.C.,” Axne said in an emailed statement.


John James: MI-10

Republican John James, who ran for the Senate in 2018 and 2020, won Michigan’s newly redrawn 10th Congressional District against Democrat Carl Marlinga.

The district is in the Detroit suburbs. Republicans wanted to win the district “to make in-roads with suburban voters.”

Trump barely won the district against Biden in 2020.

James concentrated on the economy, while Marlinga touted his pro-choice views:

While the district leaned Republican on paper, Marlinga was seen as a competitive challenger. A former probate court judge, Marlinga previously served as Macomb County’s district attorney for nearly 40 years.

James ran a campaign largely centered on rising crime rates and 40-year high inflation.

“Reckless, elitist policies of the Democrats have hollowed out the middle class,” said James. “They have sent our jobs overseas, inflation through the roof, and made our communities less safe.”

Marlinga, meanwhile, stressed his pro-choice stance on abortion and long-running ties to the community by attacking James for allegedly not living in the district.

You don’t have to live in the district you represent.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Colonel Travis | November 9, 2022 at 7:11 pm

Mayra Flores in Texas – won that special election, even Elon Musk voted for her. She lost.

    Colonel Travis in reply to Colonel Travis. | November 9, 2022 at 7:12 pm

    But Monica De La Cruz in a nearby district won, first time a (R) has ever won that one.

      As I pointed out elsewhere, Flores was gerrymandered out of her district and ended up effectively running in a less friendly district. De La Cruz won a new district that was essentially the same as the one Flores won in the special election.

I was wondering what happened to Mr. James. Good to see that he set his sights on a realistic political victory and got it. He can do with some seasoning in the Congress, and run for Senate or Governor in the future.

Repost:

Tshibaka leading Murkowski in AK. 44.3 – 42.8.

The first candidate who gets a majority of the vote wins. If nobody gets more than 50% of the vote in the first round, people’s second, third and fourth choices are factored in until someone gets to 50%. Election officials aren’t expected to finish counting ballots for up to two weeks, at which point the ranked choice voting system will kick into action.

Hopefully they will sort it out before the Senate is seated in Jan. It won’t flip the seat (on paper at least) but it will possibly get rid of one of the Senate’s prime RINOs.

    Concise in reply to Gosport. | November 9, 2022 at 8:36 pm

    Ranked choice voting is a travesty of a mockery of a sham of a mockery of a travesty of two mockeries of a sham.

      The Gentle Grizzly in reply to Concise. | November 9, 2022 at 8:51 pm

      Uhm…. You don’t like it, do you?

        A system that fosters voter ignorance and enables party (meaning Democrat) exploitation? Who wouldn’t like that?

          Milhouse in reply to Concise. | November 10, 2022 at 12:39 am

          It does neither of those things.

          The Gentle Grizzly in reply to Concise. | November 10, 2022 at 7:14 am

          I agree with Milhouse. It is an odd system compared to that to which we are accustomed,. but, it works elsewhere.

          Concise in reply to Concise. | November 10, 2022 at 8:45 am

          Uh,,,No. It’s a system that compels a voter to make a choice without knowing the relative position of the candidates and the consequences of the vote. There’s no electoral process where you know, for instance, where A stands and B stands and so you chose A. Instead you employ some asinine game strategy and guess at the preferred outcome, and the result is usu. a choice know one would have chosen if the option had been offered. Just have a run-off instead, much better than voting in a cloud of ignorance. Democrats prefer it though because they like an ill-informed electorate. They couldn’t thrive without stupid voters.

          Milhouse in reply to Concise. | November 10, 2022 at 4:32 pm

          Concise, what you wrote is so completely opposite of reality that I have to seriously doubt that you even know what we are talking about. Everything you wrote is true about the current, first-past-the-post system. The whole point of preferential voting (also known as “instant runoff”, and now as “ranked choice”) is that you don’t have any game strategies. You simply compare all the candidates available and put a 1 next to the one you really and truly prefer out of all of them, without having to take into account how anyone else may vote. Then you compare all the other candidates, and consider whom you like best supposing your #1 choice were not in the race, and you put a 2 next to that name. Wash, rinse, repeat, until you’re down to two names, both of which you hate, and you have to decide which of them you hate less, and give that person the second-last number and the one you hate more the last number. Or you stop somewhere along the way and say “From here on down I hate them all equally, and if those are the only choices left I don’t care who wins”, so you don’t rank them at all.

          Nothing could be simpler than this. There is zero gaming, zero strategy, just honestly voting your actual preferences.

          Concise in reply to Concise. | November 10, 2022 at 6:52 pm

          I’m afraid you completely misunderstand the system you’re defending. There is no reasoned debate between actually candidates. The voters could never, for example, say whether they prefer Romney vs Obama because they are never presented with that option. They have to play out hypothetical match ups. I surprised you fail to grasp this.

        You only think that because Gosport was sugarcoating it!

      Milhouse in reply to Concise. | November 10, 2022 at 12:39 am

      On the contrary, it is the fairest and most transparent system, and anyone who finds it confusing is an idiot. In Australia it is the only system ever used for any kind of election, and children of ten have no problem understanding it.

      It gets rid of strategic voting, where people feel compelled to vote for the lesser evil instead of for an actual good; under this system everyone can and should vote for their first choice first, and not worry that this will cause the worst of the others to win.

      And it means that nobody can win without an actual majority of voters saying they prefer that person to all other viable candidates. Palin lost the primary because a majority of voters, including a significant number of Republican voters, said they didn’t want her, and would prefer a Democrat to her. I think they were wrong. I am a huge Palin fan, and if I were an Alaskan voter I would have put her first. But that’s democracy.

        Concise in reply to Milhouse. | November 10, 2022 at 8:47 am

        Not at all but embrace it if you want and enjoy the democrat victories. I have nothing further to add.

        Dimsdale in reply to Milhouse. | November 10, 2022 at 10:49 am

        I disagree. I don’t think a multiple choice, or in this case, a multiple guess method will work well. If the alternate choices are the opposing parties, why would I give my vote, and any credence, to them by choosing, say, a green or libertarian as my “second choice?”

        This drags out the vote counting, and introduces multiple places for the usual Democrat tomfoolery in the counting.

        American know, or used to know, how to make a choice. The filtering process of the primaries is sufficient to sort out the riffraff (unless it is all riffraff, but ranked choice does not alleviate that problem).

        Sure, two parties mean two choices, but these others are being used as strawmen choices, and can result in even more damage if some are wolves in sheep’s clothing, something I would definitely not put past the socialists. They live and breathe voting mischief. If a libertarian, for example, is totally whack, and the choice is for a green candidate which can sound reasonable, but be an effective Democrat America hater, you have a party with two bites at the apple.

        Most convincing argument: if is didn’t advantage Democrats, they would not be for it, like mail in fraud, um, I mean ballots.

          Milhouse in reply to Dimsdale. | November 10, 2022 at 4:38 pm

          Dimsdale, it is not “multiple guess”. It’s not even multiple choice. It’s one choice at a time. Which candidate do I most want? If I can’t have that one, which of the rest do I most want?

          Why would you give a preference to someone from another party? Because you have a preference among them. If you’d rather have the Democrat than the Green, and you’d rather have the Green than the Communist, and you’d rather have the Communist than the Nazi, then that’s how you rank them. If you honestly don’t care, consider them all equally bad, and if it comes down to just those you have no preference, then that is a preference, and you stop ranking when you come to them. If all other candidates are eliminated, and it’s down to just them, then you have consented to whatever the other voters decide. If that’s not really true, and you do have a preference among them, then express it and it will count.

          There is no game strategy here. No guesswork.

        txvet2 in reply to Milhouse. | November 10, 2022 at 5:24 pm

        I know all of that, but my final opinion is that any system that ends up with the second place finisher winding up winning based on opposite party votes sucks. A system that takes an election where the two top finishers are of the same party and share a combined 90% of the vote and awards the election to the less popular of the two sucks. Especially if the winner is named Murkowski.

Lauren Boebert is back from the dead. Was 6000 down, now only 62 down.

Michigan is dead to me. The voters enshrined as state constitutional law a Planned Parenthood drafted, Soros funded abortion on demand up until birth/infanticide proposal.

The most recent ballot dump in Maricopa County (an hour ago) has Kari Lake closing rapidly on her scumbag opponent. She is 0.2% down now.

    I’m so afraid to get my hopes up!

    Concise in reply to Gosport. | November 9, 2022 at 9:23 pm

    Uh, that means she’s losing, don’t like it but down is not winning.

      Ironclaw in reply to Concise. | November 9, 2022 at 11:37 pm

      There are still tons of votes to count and she has come back from a pretty big deficit. Plus, most of the votes remaining are day-of votes and absentee ballots that were delivered to the polling stations day-of. You know, the people that the scumbag SOS tried to disenfranchise by giving them all the broke-ass voting machines.

The Republicans didn’t do too badly, I think. Outsized expectations on the right because of their disgust at Biden led them to the same point (almost) as TDS which was expecting everyone else saw the same things they did. People don’t. The majority of the races Repubs were pointing to as flipping were in Democratic areas, some heavily so and all the polls were within the margin of error. Very smart people were saying months ago after taking into consideration redistricting that the R’s would take the House but the Senate was a tough one which turned out to be true.

A couple of takeaways for me.

1)Dem states due to dissatisfied voters moving out have become more Dem and will be increasingly difficult for Republicans to win national office

2) The Biden Strategy that Dems concocted in 2020 which consisted of hiding him in his basement works. We saw in NH, AZ, PA and other states where the Democrat refused to debate the Republican or only did so at the last minute after mail in ballots were sent in.

3) Absentee and mail in ballots turn the tide. People too lazy to show up in person like to sit back and stick something in the mail. Those same people except for cases like military, nursing homes and so forth are the ones getting welfare and they are not going to vote to cut off their own pot of gold.

4) Dems can forget “flyover”. All they have to do is go after and win cities which are all strongly Dem. The rest of the state has little say.
PA: Pittsburg and Philly
NY: NYC and Buffalo
AZ: Phoenix and Tucson
MA: Boston
CT: Hartford and New Haven environs
GA: Atlanta and Savannah
IL: Chicago
MO: St Louis and KC
and so on and so forth.

    Concise in reply to diver64. | November 10, 2022 at 8:50 am

    And women voters blindly voting pro-abortion to the literal exclusion of every other issue. They love abortion, even unregulated abortion on demand up until birth. Don’t get it myself. I find infanticide distasteful and these are mothers or potential mothers. But that’s our reality.

      theduchessofkitty in reply to Concise. | November 10, 2022 at 11:44 am

      I wouldn’t call them “potential mothers.”

      I’m speaking as someone who found out while in college that I was a candidate for the receiving end of the killing scalpel.

      Realizing you were once so close to never being born sharpens your resolve to live like nothing else does.

      WTPuck in reply to Concise. | November 10, 2022 at 12:09 pm

      Don’t lump all women voters together.