Demographics and Elections Commentary tagged with House

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

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

2/8/2024: 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

1/21/2024: 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] 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

1/18/2024: [South Carolina] Rep. Jeff Duncan (R) will not seek reelection [WSPA News 7]

Photo credit: Jeff Duncan

Duncan is a 7-term Congressman, first elected in 2010. He lost the primary that year, but won the runoff vs. future "moderate" state legislator Richard Cash. Cash is already being rumored as a candidate for the now-open congressional seat. Cash's lifetime conservative rating in the SC Senate is in the low-70s, which is squish territory. Duncan has a lifetime conservative rating of 97%.

Duncan's district is ultra-safe. No Democrat has won it since 1992 and no Democrat is going to win it in the foreseeable future; they didn't even field a candidate in 2022. Trump defeated Biden in 2020 by nearly 40 points here.

Duncan is calling it a career, according to the liberal media and even RINOs like John Gizzi, because of a "sex scandal". Duncan's vindictive soon-to-be ex-wife is apparently determined to drag her husband through the mud on her way to a lucrative divorce settlement, making public accusations that Duncan had a sexual relationship with a lobbyist ("honey trap"?) working for the National Rifle Association.

When a California Democrat hooks up with a honeypot like "Fang Fang", or threatens his wife [Steven Horsford, D-NV] or even beats her [Sherrod Brown, D-OH] -- as just a few examples -- these things somehow tend to be resume enhancers; not only do the Rat politicians fail to slink away quietly, but they brazenly run for -- and win -- re-election. What is pretty quiet is the reporting of such adverse information in the liberal media; these events are reported briefly, once, if at all. Unless there's so much truth to the allegations that the media feels the need to constantly defend the Democrat. Then there's plenty of reporting, but always slanted in the usual direction.

On the other hand, when it comes to Republicans even the slightest indiscretion is always framed like this: "Duncan's reputation for conservative family values was diminished last year when his wife filed for divorce." Even a tepid revelation like that is normally enough to evict a Republican from public office, as is the case with Duncan. He knows that the liberal media will give his spiteful mate a megaphone on a daily basis for as long as necessary. Therefore Duncan has made the prudent decision to "step aside and allow others to bring fresh ideas and abilities into the fight for Liberty, just as I have".

At least he omitted the usual drivel about wanting to "spend more time with my family". It looks like the only part of him that his wife wants around is his bank account.


U.S. House 2024 South Carolina Jeff Duncan Retirement Media double standard

1/18/2024: [Ohio] Dennis Kucinich files FEC paperwork to run for Congress against Republican Max Miller [Cleveland.com]

Photo credit: news5cleveland.com

Dennis Kucinich, now 78 years old, is running for Congress again -- this time as an independent (he missed the major-party filing deadline which was a month ago). The liberal Democrat and former Boy Wonder, who was the youngest mayor in the country when he was elected to preside over the city of Cleveland in 1977, will be taking on Republican Max Miller in Ohio's 7th Congressional District.

After failing on four occasions from 1972 through 1992, Kucinich was finally elected to Congress in 1996 when he defeated moderate Republican incumbent Martin Hoke in the "White" Cleveland congressional district. Hoke's campaign was doomed when, as you may recall, he said the word "breasts" on the air when the media set him up with a microphone which he did not know was open at the time. That may not rank up there with Chappaquiddick as political scandals go, but Hoke is a Republican and his words were enough to mark him as a goner.

That started Kucinich on a House career which lasted 8 terms. He compiled an ever-so-slightly moderate voting record in Congress at first. He subsequently moved to the far left during the G.W. Bush administration, and stayed there throughout the remainder of his tenure in Congress. That tenure came to a close in 2012 when he was tossed in with fellow Democrat incumbent Marcy Kaptur in a district which spanned Lake Erie from Toledo to Cleveland. Ha ha.

That was the end -- until now -- of the Boy Wonder's political career aside from a 40-point loss to liberal Democrat Richard Cordray in the 2018 Ohio gubernatorial primary and a 3rd place finish in the Democrat primary for Cleveland Mayor in 2021.

The district in which Kucinich will be providing comic relief this year was created in 2022 as a slightly Republican-leaning district in the southern portion of the Cleveland suburbs in Cuyahoga County, south through Medina County and into Wooster. Charlie Cook's Partisan Voting Index calls it an R+7 district but R+5 might be more accurate. Under the right circumstances, the GOP could lose it.

A Kucinich candidacy is hardly the "right circumstances". Or is it?

He's likely to have little to no cash to work with, and all that his name recognition is going to get him is some laughs (voters laughing at him, that is). OK, Kucinich can't win -- but what he can try to accomplish is to trick some less-intelligent Republican voters into casting their ballots for him, just like Libertarian candidates so often do: the idea is to peel off enough GOP votes to hand the election to the Democrat.

That Democrat will be either liberal businessman Doug Bugie, who once ran for Congress over 30 years ago and finished a distant 3rd in the Democrat primary; or 2022 candidate Matthew Diemer who was outspent 10:1 by Miller and lost by 10 points. The end of the linked article is basically a campaign commercial for Bugie, who described Kucinich as one of his "political heroes". Neither Diemer nor Bugie views the Boy Wonder as a credible threat. But he may in fact be an asset.

Max Miller is a freshman and therefore somewhat vulnerable. He is a moderate/squish just like his predecessor Anthony Gonzalez, although, unlike the rabid Trump-hater Gonzalez, Miller is supposedly full-MAGA despite his moderate voting record in Congress. As noted, the 7th District is in no way rock-solid Republican. Kucinich might provide some entertainment value during the campaign, however this ploy to flip a GOP seat to the Rats is highly probable to fail in November.


U.S. House 2024 Ohio Boy Wonder 7th District Max Miller

1/9/2024: Another One Bites the Dust.... But This is 2024, Not 2018 [RightDataUSA]

Photo credit: fox59.com

Seemingly not a day goes by without another incumbent House Republican announcing that he will not be running for re-election this year. Yesterday it was 7-term moderate Republican Larry Bucshon of Indiana deciding to hang it up at the end of the year. These announcements are causing significant pearl-clutching among GOP voters who are beginning to anticipate a 2018-style annihilation in the House; Republicans lost 41 seats that November (plus one more in a prior special election) and went from a 47-seat majority to a 37-seat deficit.

Contributing to the disaster in 2018, the pearl-clutchers believe, was a spate of Republican retirements and resignations. Now history seems to be repeating itself here in 2024 and the same result as happened in 2018 is expected by some. Worse yet, this time the GOP is starting with only a minimal numerical advantage in the House, and they will lose control even if a mere handful of flips occur.

There may be some justification for the fear, and surely the tribe of media controllers and gaslighters will continue to do all it can to assist in the demoralization of Republican voters on a 24/7 basis from now through November (actually, from now through eternity).

But facts are always preferable to emotions, so here are the facts about 2018 and the facts as they stand now regarding 2024:

In 2018, 34 Republican members of the House chose not to run for re-election, through retirements or by opting to run for a different office. Eighteen Democrat incumbents also declined to run again. An additional 17 Republicans and 3 Democrats not only failed to seek re-election, they actually resigned and left Congress mid-term during 2017 and 2018. Of the total of 51 Republicans who bailed, 13 of them were replaced by Democrats. That damage was offset slightly by 2 Republicans who picked up Democrat seats, both of those in Minnesota. The net loss of 11 seats due to retirements was insufficient by itself to flip the House. But it helped quite a lot.

Maybe that was the whole idea.

Many of the Fainthearted Fifty-One were squishy liberal or "moderate" Republicans who in 2017 and 2018 found themselves caught between a rock and a hard place. Being on the left flank of the Republican party, they despised President Trump to varying degrees and were not pleased to be in a position where many of their constituents, and the conservative GOP base as a whole, expected them to help Trump's legislative agenda. Their own agenda was to do their best to ensure that Trump would be a one-term President.

The squishes had an unpalatable choice to make about running again: they could run and risk being embarrassed at the polls, since they felt that the 2018 midterms were shaping up to be a bloodbath; or they could run and maybe win. However that outcome would perhaps be even more unpalatable than losing -- what with Trump still in the White House. Congressmen have massive egos too, just like senators and presidents, and Trump was using up all the oxygen in the room. Giving up a powerful, lucrative and cushy job is not an easy thing to do, and these squishes were truly on the horns of a dilemma: how best to stop Trump?

Thanks to Trump's media-driven unpopularity, the 2018 midterms were indeed heading in the direction of a rout at the polls. The decision to go in the tank was likely made at the highest levels of the dominant liberal wing of the GOP. The RINOs, who are never comfortable in the majority anyway, greatly preferred to sacrifice control of the House after 2018 -- by sacrificing several Republican members -- in order to no longer be in a position to help the President. By conceding and even welcoming defeat, the GOP liberals also terminated expectations from pesky conservative voters ("What can we do? We don't have control anymore! Please send us money!"). This maneuver not only thwarted the Trump agenda in Congress, but began the Trump persecution which commenced as soon as the new Congress was sworn in during January of 2019.

Now some people believe we're witnessing it all again in 2024, with the GOP liberals fearing that Trump might regain the presidency. If that happens, they want to be sure that Democrats have House control so that Trump's "Revenge Tour" is stymied as much as possible.

However these recent retirements are not at all like those of 2018, where RINOs in marginal districts ran screaming for the exit and hoped -- or even said aloud -- that they wished for Democrats to win in their districts. So far this year, not one GOP retirement is likely to result in the loss of a House seat. The lone Rat pickup will probably be NY-3, George Santos' old district, and he was not a "retiree". On the other hand, several of the districts which Democrats are abandoning are golden pickup opportunities for the Republicans.

These potential pickups include three districts in North Carolina, where the Rats are whining because the illegal partisan Democrat gerrymander which was mandated in 2022 has been replaced by a lawfully-created district map which favors Republicans. It appears that -- at least for now -- the new map will be used in 2024 and beyond. The open House seats in 2024 which are most prone to shifting from bad to good are shown below along with Charlie Cook's Partisan Voting Index. PVI's for North Carolina are estimated.
  • NC-14 (Jackson), R+8?
  • NC-13 (Nickel) R+8?
  • NC-6 (Manning) R+6?
  • MI-7 (Slotkin) R+2
  • MI-8 (Kildee) R+1

Then there are slightly left-leaning districts which are ripe for Republican pickups, although that outcome is not necessarily probable:

Those last three aren't particularly likely, but they are in the ballpark. As far as the Republican departures from Congress only NY-3, which is rated as D+2, is a likely loss at this moment. The others range from utterly safe holds to very likely safe; the most marginal pair of open Republican districts are in Colorado -- CO-3 (Boebert) and CO-5 (Lamborn) -- and those are R+7 and R+9 respectively. No matter how big the Democrats talk -- and spend -- the GOP is obviously solidly favored in R+7 and R+9 districts; if they start losing those then they are in real trouble no matter how many incumbents do or do not run.

One way in which conditions in 2024 are similar to 2018 is that partisan Democrat gerrymanders will affect the political landscape. Around 2015, black-robed tyrants in Virginia and Florida dictated that Republicans must lose seats in the House and Democrats must gain. Three or four seats in those two states were affected. Then in 2018 the Pennsylvania Democrat Supreme Court waved its magic wand and flipped four more seats to the Democrats. In 2020, similar judicial machinations in North Carolina caused another two House seats to go from R to D; Liberal hysteria aside, the new map for 2024 in the Tarheel State is just barely undoing the effects of the Democrat gerrymander from 2020.

The GOP obliteration in 2018 was far more thorough than Democrat gerrymandering alone could account for, even if a new Democrat trick called "ballot harvesting" was factored in. That new technique was used in California to flip five seats from blue to red (note: proper color usage). There was also the implementation of Rigged Choice Voting in Maine, which caused a Republican defeat that would not have occurred had the votes been counted in the normal manner.

Many of the losses from 2018 were recouped in 2020, perhaps because the GOP tried a little harder to win at the House level (now that Trump was safely on his way out) and even more seats were regained in 2022. In November of 2020 the Republicans won 213 House seats to 222 for the Democrats. As noted above, judicial fiat alone resulted in at least 9 or 10 seats in four states being gifted to the Democrats in 2018 and 2020. Take away those 9 or 10 from the Democrats and put them back on the Republican side where they belonged, and who controls Congress in 2021 then?

That's right.

Quite a bit of the "Dementia Hitler" [credit: Scott Adams] agenda which was inflicted upon America in 2021 and 2022 could not have happened without Democrats having full control of the House and voting in complete lockstep for their President in a manner which Republicans never managed to do when Trump was in office.

Back to 2024: Of course the handful of GOP pickups in North Carolina will be offset (and then some) by an upcoming hyper-partisan Democrat gerrymander in New York. Other liberal gerrymanders have already occurred in Alabama and Louisiana, with more to come between now and November -- and probably even after November. But the subject here concerns retirements and for the time being no New York Republican incumbents have thrown in the towel although they are fully aware of what's coming. A few of them probably will fold though, once the new map is finalized.

There is no shortage of vulnerable incumbents in both parties who will be running for re-election in 2024. Those districts are where partisan control of Congress will be decided.

The probability of the GOP retaining control of the House in November is 50-50 at best as things stand now. If they lose, the retirements which have been announced up to now will not have been the primary factor in that loss. The net effect of all departures is helping Republicans -- even one of the GOP shifts (Boebert from CO-3 to CO-4) actually helps their chances of holding one district while not hindering their chances in the other one.

However, if we begin to see Republicans from marginal districts cashing in their chips even without the spectre of Democrat gerrymandering forcing their hands, then it might be time to start worrying. That sort of thing was exceedingly common in 2018 but hasn't happened at all in 2024 yet.


U.S. House 2024 Retirements Panic Calm down

1/4/2024: [Pennsylvania] It's not just Trump: Democrats are moving to bar Republicans from ballots nationwide [NY Post]

Photo credit: thetimes-tribune.com

We've referenced Scott Perry (R-PA) before as someone who is a prime target of left-wing hatred and someone whom liberals would dearly love to exterminate from Congress in 2024 [see commentary posted here 10 months ago] -- by any means possible. The haters have noticed by now that the hyper-partisan Democrat gerrymander which was implemented on their behalf in Pennsylvania in 2018 in violation of existing state law isn't working as intended in this case (though it worked perfectly in numerous other districts in PA). Perry is still in Congress and has been re-elected three times since the Democrat gerrymanders went into effect.

Since they can't get their way at the ballot box every time, the Democrats are now resorting to lawfare via frivolous legal actions against "insurrectionist" politicians (like Rashida Tlaib, right?) to try to bar them from being able to run for office again. A left-wing nutjob "activist" has filed suit to stop Perry from seeking re-election in 2024. The Rats know this Stalin-esque suppression of their political enemies probably isn't going to hold up in court, even in the court of a liberal judge who uses the Constitution for toilet paper, but there's no reason for them not to try.

It's a no-risk venture; the Stalinists have full control of the "mainstream" media, which helps the less intelligent voters stay that way; and the Republicans are absolutely not going to fight back by justifiably doing the same thing to election-denying (2016) Democrats like the racist homeboy from Brooklyn who is highly likely to become Speaker of the House in the aftermath of the 2024 elections.

Even if the Democrat move to bar Perry, the lone conservative Republican in Congress from the entire northeastern U.S., from the 2024 ballot does not succeed, the idea is to generate as much negative publicity for him as they can and thereby jeopardize his re-election chances as much as possible. That effort will be fully aided and abetted by the local and national media, Trump-hating (and hater of all conservatives) RINO PA Secretary of State Al Schmidt, the corrupt PA Democrat Supreme Court, and more.

Perry's district is only slightly right-leaning and getting worse by the day. It was a safe district as configured back in 2011 and Perry first won it in 2012 when thoroughly squishy Republican Todd Platts retired:

Link: PA District 10 Demographics & Election Results

The corrupt PA Democrat Supreme Court seized control of the redistricting process in 2018 -- when no redistricting was even required -- and demanded an immediate and severe Democrat gerrymander which flipped several congressional seats from R to D and greatly endangered two other Republican incumbents (Perry being one of those two).

Actions such as these by black-robed Democrat tyrants in places like PA, Florida, North Carolina and Virginia were the ONLY reason the Democrats controlled the House after 2018.

Think about the impact that had on the final two years of the Trump presidency and in subsequent years; if the 2018 congressional elections had been left to the voters instead of the judges, the Republicans would have controlled the House during those years.

In the next redistricting in PA, the corrupt Court again stole control away from the GOP legislature -- which, thanks to the Court's state-level Democrat gerrymander, is no longer in GOP control -- and then screwed the Republicans again by taking away one more seat.

Perry has managed to survive so far, and the Rats inexplicably didn't even seriously challenge him in 2022; the best they could do was a radical leftist Harrisburg city councilwoman.

They are taking no chances this time. Smelling Perry's blood in the water, so far seven liberals have lined up to take him on, including a "bubble-headed bleached blonde" media bimbo who might be the current favorite (of the far left) in the race for the Democrat nomination.


U.S. House 2024 Pennsylvania Scott Perry Lawfare

12/28/2023: [Colorado] Lauren Boebert will switch congressional districts to improve her chances of winning in 2024 [Colorado Sun]

Photo credit: Jerry McBride/Durango Herald

It's great that Boebert is maximizing her chances of remaining in Congress -- which were quite minimal -- by moving from Colorado's 3rd congressional district over to its 4th congressional district. We need more conservative fighters like her in the GOP House caucus instead of representatives like the former conservative but current wimp (Ken Buck) who she'd be replacing in CO-4.

Boebert was too "controversial" for the comparatively marginal CO-3 area, and the Rats had made her target #1 in 2024. Now that George Santos is gone (his former district will very likely fall to the Rats in a special election in two months), CO-3 was supposed to be their #1 easiest pickup among districts which have not been Democrat-gerrymandered since 2022 such as Alabama's District 2, which by judicial fiat is being snatched away from Republicans and handed over to the Democrats on a silver platter (more like a black platter, actually) in 2024. The same thing is going to happen in Louisiana as well.

Or at least CO-3 was the Democrats' easiest pickup opportunity. With Boebert's departure it's going to be a little tougher than it would have been; the district should now be moved from the "Toss-Up" category back to "Leans Republican".

Under normal circumstances the only way a Democrat can win in that district is to have all the money in the world to work with -- and to have a hideously unpopular Republican opponent. Now those conditions are only 50% applicable instead of 100% for the House election in 2024. Yes, Democrat Adam Frisch has all the money in the world to campaign with and clear sailing in the Democrat primary, but the district's natural GOP leanings (R+7) are likely to come through with Boebert gone; all that cash may not save Frisch's liberal-posing-as-a-moderate ass.

That's good news for CO-3 however the odds are still against Boebert in the Republican primary in CO-4. The establishment will be all in to defeat her as it was in 2022 (and only narrowly failed), the "carpetbagger" accusation will be thrown around, Boebert's alleged baggage still remains -- and don't forget that "independents" can vote in the GOP primary in Colorado without even having to re-register as Republicans.

Worst of all, Boebert's presence may have the effect of splitting the conservative vote in the CO-4 primary and allowing a squish to sneak in there too. We'll find out next June.

Whoever wins the primary in CO-4 -- even if it's Boebert -- will be heavily favored to win in November in this district which Trump won with 58% (under the current district lines) in 2020. Both Boebert and Trump struggled to get to even 51% in their most recent elections in CO-3, but CO-4 is easily the most Republican district in the state and is normally willing to send a conservative to Congress; before running hard to the left in 2023, Ken Buck had been a good conservative throughout his House tenure and had always been re-elected with large margins.


U.S. House 2024 Colorado Lauren Boebert

12/19/2023: Democrats Stage a Congressional Map-Making Coup in New York [Wall Street Journal]

Another domino falls against the probability of the GOP continuing to maintain House control after 2024. Maybe a house of cards would have been a better image for the fragile and timid Republican majority in Congress.

On December 12 the Wall Street Journal published an article which noted that a cadre of liberal Democrat judges in New York has given their party a significant opportunity to seize control of the U.S. House of Representatives in November of 2024. They did this by green-lighting a hyper-partisan Democrat gerrymander -- a belated re-drawing of congressional district lines -- which is likely to result in the ouster of four Republicans (not to mention the already-departed George Santos) from the New York delegation.

With the GOP having only the most narrow margin to work with the House, not that it's often easy to tell that they actually have control at all, a swing of four seats from R to D is extremely important. And that's only a portion of what Democrats in black robes are doing to help their party's cause (see below).

The WSJ article notes that "The [previous] map resulted in Republicans winning 11 of 26 seats" in New York in 2022. That statement is completely wrong insofar as it implies a favorable "map" had anything whatsoever to do with Republicans overachieving and winning those 11 seats.

In 2020 Democrats won 19 out of 27 congressional districts in New York. The map which was used in 2022 was even better for them, favoring Democrats in 19 or 20 out of 26 seats. The GOP merely got lucky in 2022 and won nearly every close race in marginal D+ districts (CD-3, CD-4, CD-17, CD-19, CD-22).

Even with no new Democrat gerrymander, they were highly likely to lose most of those next year anyway. The bloodbath will commence next February with the special election in CD-3, where Santos was ousted by his liberal RINO colleagues such as his next-door "neighbor" in CD-4, Anthony D'Esposito, who is the most likely of all the remaining NY Republican freshmen to get his ass kicked next November. But the Rats ain't taking any chances of more fluke GOP wins and are going to rig the game to pick up numerous House seats in NY next year.

You may wonder why Republicans normally do not bother to seek redress from the courts when they are screwed by Democrats in redistricting. Here's an example of what happens when they try:

In November of 2020 Democrats vowed to get revenge on GOP Rep. Yvette Herrell in New Mexico because she had the audacity to defeat a Democrat in a House race that year, and they got their vengeance by redistricting her out of the House; Herrell narrowly lost in 2022 in a district which was substantially altered from the one in which she had prevailed in 2020. In late November of 2023, the 100% Democrat New Mexico Supreme Court unsurpisingly ruled that the partisan gerrymander which the Democrats in the NM legislature created was 100% legal despite the fact that the NM state Constitution explicitly forbids such spiteful partisan gerrymanders.

In cases like these, Democrat judges are all about upholding the party -- as opposed to upholding the law. When a law unfavorable to Democrats exists, they simply ignore it; when no law favorable to Democrats exists, they simply "legislate from the bench" and invent one out of thin air as was done in North Carolina in 2022.

Because the House landscape will probably be constantly undergoing changes between now and next November, we will periodically publish an updated scorecard to show how the GOP majority is being eroded by Democrat gerrymanders.

New districting maps mandated by racist Democrat judges will cost Republicans one U.S. House seat next year in each of Alabama and Louisiana, and they are also trying to gerrymander Georgia (+1 for the Rats), South Carolina (also +1), and Tennessee (ditto) along similar racist lines. They will try for +2 in Wisconsin by insisting that Republicans were not sufficiently screwed by the Democrat-drawn map which was used in 2022. And don't rule out Democrat shenanigans in Florida, similar to what occurred in that state during the previous decade.

In Alabama, judges have eliminated a White (Republican) district from the face of the earth and replaced it with one which must elect a black Democrat, or else. The GOP has recruited a good candidate who possesses the required melanin content (former University of Alabama and NFL defensive lineman Wallace Gilberry) but he is hardly likely to prevail in the new ghettofied version of CD-2 and he is just as unlikely to get much in the way of help from the national Republican party, which knows quite well how to "take the L" gracefully.

Republicans are clinging desperately to the hope that they will offset some of these disasters by going +3 or so under a new North Carolina map that might be installed to replace the one which was illegally mandated by Democrat judges on the NC Supreme Court in 2022. But don't count on that new NC map being used in 2024 just yet. All it takes is one partisan liberal judge somewhere to put a stop to it.

Liberals are swinging for the fences as well in Republican strongholds such as Kentucky, Arkansas and Utah, where they hope to locate some compliant black-robed tyrants who will put partisan election outcomes above the law. When it comes to redistricting, the Democrat motto is "sue everywhere!"; the GOP leadership grumbles a little but then bends over as they usually do.

In Utah, where an independent commission created the map which was used in 2022, Democrats are whining (and, of course, suing) because they claim that the Democrat mecca of Salt Lake City was purposely split up in order to dilute the concentration of leftists in any one congressional district. The extremely partisan League of Women Voters was offended by the map the independent commission created, and has taken up the Democrat cause as is customary for that "nonpartisan" (LOL) organization.

To see something quite similar you need only to look slightly to the west of Utah where, in Nevada, the Democrat legislature carved up the city of Las Vegas in order to dilute Republican strength in each of the three districts in which Las Vegas lies. We're patiently waiting for the League of Hysterical Harpies to discover this particular injustice and file suit accordingly on behalf of the GOP.


U.S. House Redistricting New York Gerrymander New Mexico

12/19/2023: [Georgia] Redistricting special session likely to boost Democrats [Capitol Beat]

Photo credit: wabe.org

The linked article was published in late November by the self-proclaimed "unbiased" website "Capitol Beat" which covers Georgia politics from an exclusively left-wing perspective. It concerns how that state's legislature is going to cope with the recent ruling of an Obama judge which demands the redrawing of district maps at all levels (state House, state Senate, and Congress) to elect Democrats and exterminate Republicans.

This came in response to a lawsuit against the state of Georgia, naming squishy Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger as the defendant and kooky racist organizations such as the ACLU and the Alpha Phi Alpha fraternity (yes, really) as plaintiffs.

Judge Steve Jones "ordered the legislature to redraw the 2021 congressional and legislative maps. The lengthy 516-page ruling specifically instructed lawmakers to add one Black majority congressional district, two more Black majority Georgia Senate districts, and five additional state House seats."

The article goes on to speculate gleefully about which congressional Republican (Rich McCormick or Barry Loudermilk) will be the one to be purged from Congress and replaced by a racist Democrat. A liberal political science professor from the University of Georgia could hardly conceal his delight as he considered the delicious prospect of the GOP-controlled legislature having the grim task of deciding "which Republicans are going to walk the plank."

ACLU lawyer Ari Savitzky issued the typical boilerplate leftist-racist drivel about how this ruling would result in "a level playing field [for blacks] and progress from the past". Oy, vey.

The state of Georgia appealed the judge's ruling but significantly did not bother to seek a stay of the order. Which meant that whatever Democrat gerrymanders occur as "remedies" in this case will be accepted by the Republican Governor, Secretary of State and legislature without a peep: just bend over and take it.

If that's not the official GOP motto, it ought to be.

At the heart of rulings such as this one and similar rulings which will cost Republicans seats in Congress in Alabama and Louisiana (and probably more states to come) are the twin racist assumptions that Whites are not fit -- at least not White Republicans -- to represent black constituents; and that in order for blacks to be elected to Congress (or to a state legislature) special districts must be created with black majorities because, unless the deck is stacked in their favor, these segregationist Democrats couldn't get elected.

As to exactly how many of these special districts must be created in a state, the answer is that the number of districts must match the proportion of blacks in the state. For example, if a state is 25% black then 25% of the districts must favor black candidates (specifically, black Democrat candidates).

That monkey-math doesn't compute in the case of the Georgia congressional delegation, however, because the playing field is already more than "level".

The state of Georgia has 14 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. The state of Georgia is, as of the 2021 Census estimates, 32% black. Thirty-two percent of 14 is 4.48, which means that the racists demand that blacks [Democrats] hold 4.48 of those 14 seats.

They already hold FIVE of the 14 seats, and the obvious intent of this Obama judge is that they get a SIXTH seat (see bolded text above).

We'll find out very soon if this holds up in judge Steve Jones' court of "law" (don't hold your breath), but for now the Republicans in the Georgia legislature have shockingly stuck to their guns and come up with a map which has exactly as many black-majority congressional districts (5, not 6) as those bigots are allegedly entitled to.

The primary focus is on the current 7th Congressional District (CD-7), which has an ultra-liberal black Democrat incumbent (who defeated an ultra-liberal White Democrat incumbent in 2022) but up to now CD-7 did not have the requisite black majority even though Whites comprised only 30% of the voters.

The new map, in which the district in question is now labeled as CD-6 rather than CD-7, has rectified the situation by drawing the lines in such a way as to increase the black percentage in CD-6 all the way to approximately 50%, but did so without endangering any Republican incumbents at all. Ha ha.

Democrats are seething about this because, as is always at the heart of these matters, it's not about increasing the number of minority representatives in Congress; it's about increasing the number of Democrat representatives and reducing the number of Republicans, particularly at a time when control of Congress is so much up for grabs.

What happens next?

Tomorrow (Dec. 20) is the date which his majesty Judge Jones has set for his unilateral review of the new maps. Remember, "bend over and take it" is the GOP motto, not the Democrats'. So what the hell do you think is going to happen?

If the Democrats and their allied tyrants in black robes insist upon trying to mandate racist election outcomes, attempting to seize a number of districts over and above what even their own biased math indicates, an honest judge just might uphold the law and toss them out of court.

Now all the GOP has to do is find an honest judge to hear their upcoming appeal in this case. Good luck.

UPDATE: On December 28, Judge Jones shocked everyone and dismayed his fellow Democrats by approving the new congressional district map drawn by the Georgia legislature. Liberal crybabying commenced immediately, despite the fact that the GOP-controlled legislature fully complied with the judge's mandate to create a fifth black-majority congressional district. As noted above, five such districts out of a total of 14 exceeds the actual proportion of blacks in the state of Georgia.

So why aren't Democrats celebrating? (Scroll back a few paragraphs to find the answer.)

Look for reaction from Democrat-controlled states in the near future (New York and Wisconsin leap immediately to mind), where leftists will redouble efforts to gerrymander Republicans out of Congress because they are upset that Republicans weren't screwed any harder than they were in Georgia. Judge Jones' ruling is in no way a "win" or a gain for the GOP; it merely enables them to hold onto what they already earned.


U.S. House Georgia State Legislature Redistricting

11/2/2023: Yesterday's Developments in Congress [RightDataUSA]

Photo credit: The Hill

On November 1, there were two roll-call votes in the House concerning possible disciplinary actions against two individual members, and another two Republican representatives announced that they would not be running for re-election in 2024.

In the first vote, Hamas-supporting Muslim Democrat Rashida Tlaib of Detroit Ghetto, Michigan was to be mildly censured for "antisemitic activity, sympathizing with terrorist organizations, and leading an insurrection at the United States Capitol Complex". However this vote to censure failed by the count of 186 to 222.

All Democrats voted in complete lockstep as they always do, except when a few members are allowed to stray for tactical reasons (an example of that is coming up in a few paragraphs), but 23 Republicans defended the Democrat terrorist-lover and another 11 GOP cowards chose to avoid voting although they were present at the time of the vote. It's not as if Ms. Tlaib would be hurt at all if she had been censured -- and her participation in an actual insurrection, like most crimes committed by Democrat politicians, is a resumé-enhancer.

Earlier in the day, GOP representatives Kay Granger of Texas and Ken Buck of Colorado revealed that they will retire from Congress at the end of the current term.

Granger was first elected to her suburban Metroplex district in 1996, and Democrats have not seriously challenged her since 1998. The district has been moved politically to the right over the years through redistricting (though it was shifted back towards the left this time around), which also tends to discourage challenges. The GOP should easily be able to hold this seat next November. The same applies to Ken Buck's Colorado district, which favors GOP candidates slightly more than Granger's district.

Buck is a perfect example of why you cannot evaluate a Republican's conservatism simply by looking at his voting record. Buck's voting record in Congress is highly conservative, or at least it was through 2022; he voted the right way nearly 100% of the time. However Buck is also a flake, flitting all over the place in the past and especially lately. Buck did the right thing by being one of the tiny number of GOP insurgents who ousted Squish McCarthy as Speaker of the House. However....

Back in July he used his allotted time during the Republicans' grilling of quisling Christopher Wray to heap praise (instead of well-deserved derision) on the Trump-hating FBI director and his organization, even as the FBI was busy protecting the Biden Crime Family from any consequences of their crimes. In recent days, Buck led the revolt against conservative Jim Jordan in order to prevent him from replacing McCarthy as Speaker. Buck has made no secret of his desire to join the most liberal of all liberal media outlets (CNN) as a GOP-bashing commentator when his days "serving the public" are over.

But at least he votes the correct way and that's sufficient, right?


And good riddance.

The second vote yesterday was to potentially expel -- not merely censure -- non-terrorist Republican George Santos of New York. Ever since being elected in 2022, Santos has been accused of lying about his past, though at least Santos never lied by claiming to have "served' in the Vietnam War, like a certain Democrat Senator from Connecticut has done with impunity. Santos is being persecuted, a la Trump, by the always impartial and non-partisan "lawfare" system in New York state.

This resolution to expel Santos (the second one he has faced this year) was brought by five of his Republican colleagues from New York, all of whom are liberal freshmen (Santos is the only conservative among the newest members of the NY delegation) and all of whom are, not surprisingly, totally gutless. Apparently these invertebrates fear being labeled as guilty by assocation with Santos when they run for re-election next year. Therefore they would prefer to be rid of him prior to that time.

One wonders why Michigan Democrats are not equally fearful of guilt-by-assocation with their racist Muslim colleague, Rashida Tlaib. Do simps like Brandon Williams, Mike Lawler and Marc Molinaro -- running in New York districts many miles away from the one Santos represents -- really need to be so terrified of some liberal media reporter challenging them about another member of their party?

Although 24 of his fellow GOP-ers did vote to expel Santos yesterday, 31 Democrats tactically came to his rescue, and the motion for expulsion failed. What great human beings those 31 Democrats are, putting aside their partisan differences to aid an embattled Republican! Right?


The list of Santos' newly-minted supporters from across the aisle contains some of the most hard-core racists in the Democrat party. The Democrats merely want Santos to remain in Congress -- as a whipping boy for themselves and as an albatross for Republicans -- because they (like the five New York cowards) believe he will be a campaign issue in 2024. Those Santos haters are likely to be disappointed.

Although Santos has not yet announced that he isn't running in 2024, it's a fact that he won't be. Santos has zero chance of being re-elected, and probably has the lowest amount of campaign cash-on-hand of any incumbent Republican. He's finished.

Even without Santos in the race there's still a greater than 50% probability that the seat flips anyway in 2024 because his win was perhaps the greatest fluke outcome among House elections in 2022. And that prediction for 2024 comes even without considering the probable implementation of a hyper-partisan Democrat gerrymander which will eradicate many House Republicans in New York. There's a ton of money in the race already in Santos' district -- on both sides -- several million dollars as compared to Santos' pittance, and almost a dozen financially-viable candidates.


U.S. House George Santos Expulsion Rashida Tlaib Actual Insurrection Kay Granger Ken Buck

10/28/2023: Masks Off: Alarming New Gallup Poll Blows Growing Democrat Schism Over the Israel Issue Wide Open [Redstate]

Photo credit: AP Photo/Evan Vucci

Fifteen Democrats went on record as failing to support Israel after the Hamas attacks, when asked to vote on a resolution comdemning those attacks. The 9 who voted against the resolution are:

Rep. Jamaal "Fire Chief" Bowman of New York
Rep. Cori Bush of Missouri
Rep. Andre Carson of Indiana
Rep. Al Green of Texas
Rep. Summer Lee of Pennsylvania
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York
Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota
Rep. Delia Ramirez of Illinois
Rep. Rashida Tlaib of Michigan

These 6 voted "present", thinking they could escape scrutiny:

Rep. Greg Casar of Texas
Rep. Joaquin Castro of Texas
Rep. Chuy Garcia of Illinois
Rep. Pramila Jayapal of Washington
Rep. Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts
Rep. Nydia Velazquez of New York

All but one of these racists represent heavily-Democrat ghetto or barrio districts, and their chances for re-election are not endangered (perhaps they are even enhanced) by this vote.

The exception: freshman Hamas supporter Summer Lee in Pennsylvania's 12th congressional district. While that district does include the city of Pittsburgh and a few of its more reprehensible suburbs such as Duquesne, Homestead and Braddock, it also includes quite a bit of good suburban areas, particularly those in the western portion of Westmoreland County, where Trump won by nearly 30 points in 2020. The district is rated as D+8 because the bad areas outvote the respectable ones.

The district contains a significant number of Jews, in the Squirrel Hill section of Pittsburgh and elsewhere. When Lee comes up for re-election in 2024, it will be interesting to see if the Jews in CD-12 side with Israel or whether they are the secular, atheistic, ultra-liberal types who couldn't care less about their ancestral homeland and care only about voting straight-ticket Democrat as usual.

Ms. Lee won the Democrat primary in 2022 only by a very small margin over an ultra-liberal (but not completely psychotic, like herself) Jewish candidate; she may not be so lucky in 2024 but whoever wins that primary will very likely win the general election too.

A year from now this might all be old news, but for now it's quite current and a good "proxy" for her chances in 2024 is coming up in a few days: the 2023 Allegheny County district attorney election, in which long-term Democrat Steven Zappala was defeated in the Rat primary by a mega-woke nutjob. Zappala is now on the ballot as a Republican because the GOP naturally didn't bother to run anyone in such a normally lost-cause as this one (Zappala won via write-in votes).

If Zappala can somehow pull off a miracle win in a hardcore Democrat bastion like Allegheny County with all he'd have to overcome (Democrat fraud too, if it's close enough to warrant that), it would be a serious wake-up call to radical, racist Democrats like Lee. If Zappala gets the vast majority of Republican votes, splits the "independents" and takes a percentage of the Democrat vote anywhere close to what he received in the primary (that's going to be the toughest part) this election may be much closer than expected.


Israel Hamas Democrat Terrorists U.S. House Pennsylvania Pittsburgh

10/25/2023: North Carolina Republicans Propose Harshest Gerrymander Yet [Elections Daily]

Photo credit: elections-daily.com

Looks like the NCGOP is trying for a home run here, and hopefully will get it. If the partisan Democrat NC Supreme Court had not invented a "law" and overturned the original GOP map which was submitted a couple of years ago, Republicans would have won 9 or maybe 10 at most (out of 14) seats in Congress. Now, ironically, they may have a chance to do even better (11-3). Ha ha.

The left-wing author of the linked article is outraged, naturally, yet was strangely silent about hyper-partisan Democrat gerrymanders in the recent past (Illinois, Pennsylvania, etc.) and will be gleeful about ones which are probably coming up in the near future (New York, Wisconsin, etc.).

If the Republicans can pick up 3 seats or so in North Carolina, that reduces the probability of election-denying Brooklyn homeboy Hakeem Jeffries wielding the Speaker's gavel come 2025. It probably doesn't reduce that probability enough, however. Even if "re-redistricting" between now and the 2024 elections is 100% neutral, the number of truly vulnerable Republican representatives exceeds the similar number for Democrats as things stand now.

If a minor miracle or 2 takes place in the 2024 Senate elections, the outcome could well be that the GOP loses the House but gains nominal control of the Senate.

Don't be too fast to count those North Carolina chickens, though. Lawsuits have surely been prepared in anticipation of this day, and whether those suits have any merit or not is irrelevant -- the idea, at a minimum, is to delay the implementation of this "harsh gerrymander" past 2024, so don't be surprised if that's exactly what happens.

First tactic will be to use the Alabama strategy and insist that because North Carolina is 21% black then they are "entitled" to 3 out of 14 districts on that basis.

NC is also 10% Hispanic, which could mean another entitlement of one district. Both of those racist factors would combine to limit the GOP to at most 10 out of 14 seats. Which is still much better than the 7 they hold now.

Another tactic they'll use is that the filing deadline for 2024 is coming up soon, as if that deadline can't be changed, and claim that it's "too late" now to implement a new map. That's the trick the Rats tried in 2022 in New York when they (temporarily) didn't get their way. It didn't work then, but who knows if it will now?


North Carolina Redistricting U.S. House

9/20/2023: Republicans Just Got Blasted in a New Hampshire Special Election Because Zero Lessons Have Been Learned [Redstate]

Photo credit: AP Photo/Charles Krupa

The Trump-haters and GOP establishment shills who run "RedState.com" have decided that Donald Trump blew it again. It happened yesterday in a tiny New Hampshire district in which a liberal Democrat defeated a MAGA Republican in a special election that most voters ignored. Trump himself likely wasn't even aware of the election, much less involved in it in any way.

The author of the article (someone called "Bonchie") believes that the results of this bellwether (LOL) election, in which approximately 0.00000001% of the U.S. electorate participated, portends certain doom for the GOP in 2024 because we haven't learned the "lesson" that conservative candidates simply cannot win anywhere. He may not be wrong about what will occur in '24, but his reasoning is quite faulty; inferring anything from an ultra-low turnout special election in a microscopic state House district (don't get confused and think this was a Congressional election) is moronic.

Well, unless it suits your agenda.

Remember in 2022 when the GOP won an actual Congressional special election in south Texas and that result -- historic though it was -- was supposed to mean "muh Red Wave" in November as opposed to being just an isolated fluke outcome which was reversed in November? How'd that wave work out?

Regarding yesterday's irrelevancy in New Hampshire, the author's hyperventilating assertion that because Governor Squish Sununu had a 22-point margin of victory last November in this district meant that it should have been a slam-dunk for Republicans is deliberately misleading. Instead of pretending that this is some "dark red" district, which it damn sure is not, if the author was interested in the truth instead of trying to induce panic, he would have pointed out that although Trump won this district in 2020.... it was by a whopping 26 votes which is less than 1 percent. And that result is much more in line with the true current political leaning of the district than what Squish got.

This is a marginal, slightly right-of-center, wimpy/moderate district at best, consisting of a couple of tiny towns in Rockingham County. That doesn't mean the GOP couldn't have won yesterday, but Itchy or Scratchy or Poochie or whatever the author's name is should drop the stupid fallacy that this was supposed to be an easy win, much less extrapolate from what a few hundred voters did in New Hampshire yesterday to nationwide calamity in 2024.

As to the quality of the GOP candidate, of course the Democrat media is going to take every opportunity to slime all Republicans who are running for office (no matter how small the office), and there's no sense in making it easier for them by exclaiming that "Jeebus told me Trump really won in 2020!!!!", something along the lines of which the GOP candidate, pastor James Guzofski, is alleged to have done here. Or by being set up for a grope date in a movie theater with the Democrat cameras running (Lauren Boebert).

In the end, what this miniscule election means for 2024 all by itself is absolutely nothing, despite the hysteria.


New Hampshire State House election 2023

9/20/2023: Ratings Update: Ohio Congressional Races Solidify as Maps Approved for Second Term [Elections Daily]

Good news (presumably) out of the Buckeye State as regards the U.S. House districts which will be used in 2024, though by a Democrat-friendly state law they will still be invalidated before the 2026 elections. The 2024 districts will be the same ones which were used in 2022, which may cause one to wonder why this is considered to be good news seeing as how Democrats were the ones who benefited in '22. More on that below, but first, some history:

Years ago, redistricting was almost exclusively a once-a-decade thing which took place after each decennial Census. District lines were redrawn to take effect in years ending in '2' and those lines normally remained unaltered until the next Census.

Those days are long gone.

Following the "Gingrich Revolution" of 1994, in which Republicans not only regained control of the U.S. House of Representatives for the first time in 40 years, the party also began making significant inroads at the state legislative level (especially in the South), which by 2000 meant that the GOP had control of the redistricting process in many states which Democrats had controlled forever.

Democrat gerrymanders had played a huge role in their eternal command of the U.S. House (and many state legislatures) and they were not about to let that go without a fight. When Democrats were suddenly no longer winning the game they had worked so hard to rig in the past, they simply changed the rules to try to rig things again in their favor.

As a result, legislatures (which may now be controlled by eeevil Republicans) are bypassed whenever possible, and the process of redrawing the lines is shunted off to liberal judges or "non-partisan" commissions. Furthermore, the process is no longer limited to taking place once per decade; it ends only when Democrats say it ends. Therefore "re-redistricting" has become an increasingly common event.

Just since 2022, Democrats have sued or otherwise conspired to alter legal GOP-held House districts in several states including, but possibly not limited to: Alabama, South Carolina, Louisiana, Tennessee, Georgia, Florida, New York and Wisconsin. Ohio, until a couple of weeks ago, was also on the list.

According to the linked article, Ohio Democrats have withdrawn their lawsuit. The author hypothesizes that the reason for the sudden change of heart was that liberals feared the GOP legislature creating an even better map for their party. Often, when a court invalidates a map, it has some liberal group draw the map (e.g. in Pennsylvania) and doesn't give the Republicans another chance at it.

It's hard to tell what all the fear would be about in this case. When a court threw out a partisan Democrat gerrymander in Maryland prior to the 2022 elections (the first time a Democrat plan had been quashed in many years, maybe ever) it allowed the leftist legislature to redraw the map -- which it did, resulting in only a slight change in one district, which the Democrats then won anyway.

The same thing happened in Ohio too, when the allegedly "Republican" state Supreme Court tossed the original 2022 map and gave the Republicans another chance. At which point the Republicans proceeded to shoot themselves in the foot; they aren't called the Stupid Party for nothing. They deliberately sacrificed Republican Congressman Steve Chabot by creating a Cincinnati ghetto district for him, which naturally he lost to a liberal Democrat. The GOP was supposed to offset this with a pickup or two elsewhere in the state, but they blew it.

The Cincy district (CD-1) is rated as D+1 or D+2 -- it contains the good area of Warren County in addition to the bad parts of the city. So it's winnable but not a likely pickup.

CD-9 (Toledo area) is an R+ district, but the Democrats ran a typically dirty campaign against the Republican candidate on behalf of sweet, old grandmotherly (LOL) incumbent Marcy Kaptur, a liberal who has been in office since approximately the Truman Administration. Nevermind merely supporting Kaptur, the Democrats spent more against J.R. Majewski than he was able to raise himself; being a conservative, the GOPe was not anxious to help him and so they didn't.

In the very marginal CD-13 (Akron) open seat, the GOP was split, with Trump endorsing former beauty queen Madison Gesiotto, who narrowly won the primary but then was defeated by Democrat Emilia Sykes (definitely not a beauty queen) in a relentlessly negative campaign from which the fractured GOP never recovered and the seat was lost.

Democrats are clearly confident of holding all 3 of these seats in 2024, hence their acceptance of the current "Republican" map and their reluctance to take a chance on changing it.


Ohio U.S. House Redistricting Backfire

9/12/2023: [South Carolina] House Republican Nancy Mace Says 'We Will Lose Next Year' If MAGA Members Bully Moderates [Mediate]

Photo credit: The Hill

Liberal GOP crybully is welcomed onto a low-rated ultra-liberal TV network in order to bash conservatives. Any "news" story pertaining to a Republican politician which contains "During an appearance on CNN..." tells you all you need to know about that politician's credibility.

Patriotic American voters who would like to see the GOP in Congress stand for something (did you know that Republicans actually control the House of Representatives?), lament the defeatist attitude and cowardly legislative inaction by squishes such as Kevin McCarthy -- and Nancy Mace. Conservative voters believe, rightly, that after 2024 the GOP is likely to lose control of the House for those reasons.

That is very likely to happen as things stand now. Demoralized conservative voters notwithstanding, another reason for the impending loss is that Democrats are preparing to pick up several seats from the effects of belated redistricting which (in all cases except North Carolina, if redistricting there ever happens) will favor Democrats across the board.

Interestingly, one belated redistricting target of Democrat racists is.... the South Carolina district which Nancy Mace represents. Democrats decided that South Carolina's delegation In Washington ain't gots enough "people of color" (Tim Scott doesn't count since he's a Republican) and specifically they have targeted Mace's CD-1, which is Charleston and vicinity, for "reparations".

The Democrat/NAACP lawsuit is now at the Supreme Court level after some liberal federal judges took the racists' side, and it has already been proven that the GOP absolutely can NOT count on that so-called "Republican" Supreme Court to do the right thing in these cases.

Won't it be funny when a stooge like Nancy Mace gets ousted by racist liberals to whom she is closer ideologically than she is to conservatives? It's not like the GOP can afford to lose this House district -- or any district -- due to the effects of Democrat racism and a compliant Court, though something about irony being delicious regarding this turn of events comes to mind.


If Mace's district is redrawn and overrun by the Charleston ghetto, do not be surprised if she jumps on her broomstick and flies to a different district (perhaps CD-7) and tries to oust the GOP incumbent there. She'll have 100% support from the GOPe, just like she did in 2022 when they helped her to fight against a solid conservative in the primary. The establishment may claim publicly that it will be neutral in a matchup of incumbents, but you can count on there not being much neutrality going on behind the scenes.

CD-7 is represented by freshman Republican Russell Fry who prevailed against Trump-hating liberal incumbent Tom Rice in the 2022 primary. Oh how the GOPe must despise Fry, and would love to save Mace and dump him simultaneously. It's worth noting that Mace already has at least 4 times the amount of cash for the 2024 election as Fry does. If they battle each other, one of those two will get a lot more $$$$ from the GOPe. It won't be Fry.


Nancy Mace South Carolina RINO U.S. House

7/20/2023: [Colorado] Cook shifts Boebert race to 'toss-up' [The Hill]

Photo credit: Getty Images

The reason is because the liberal Ass-pen Democrat whom Boebert narrowly defeated in 2022 is back for another run at her, and has been given a ton of money so far (probably a good deal of it from "Republicans"), with plenty more to come.

Some folks probably picture Boebert's mostly-rural Colorado district as being one where the people all wear flannel shirts, carry hunting rifles.... and vote Republican. In fact Colorado's 3rd congressional district is now over 26% Hispanic (Boebert did especially poorly in the Mexican counties) and it gave Donald Trump just 51% of the vote in 2020. Analysts even aside from the usual haters on the left marvel at Boebert's unpopularity in what they erroneously believe is a "red" district, but it seems that Trump must be exactly as unpopular as Boebert because they are both 51%-ers here now, at best.

Trump did do better in CO-3 back in 2016, just like everywhere else, before the plandemic made vote fraud so much easier for Democrats, but neither Trump nor Boebert qualifies as truly popular with a majority of voters, fraud or no fraud.

Anyone who inspires a lot of enthusiasm on the GOP side will ALWAYS generate an equal or greater amount of hate among the Rats and the media, and that fact is apparent in the vote totals.

This is a marginal district now whether anyone wants to admit it or not, and barely "red" at all. The Rats have been going all out against Boebert since she took office and she's done well to survive this long. "Independents" vote in the GOP primary (as permitted by Colorado law) in order to support her opponent. That trick didn't work in 2022, but the general was very close and always will be for her.

Despite the tribe of media-controllers gleefully publicizing her recent catfight with MTG, who is another one on the liberals' Most Hated List, we need both of them in Congress -- and many more like them -- since they have more balls (not literally; they're not transvestite Democrats) than nearly any other GOP reps.

But any incumbent getting massively outspent this early in a campaign in a marginal district is in serious trouble, period. It doesn't mean Boebert automatically loses in '24, but nobody should be so naive as to think she's remotely safe.

The funny thing is that CO-3 was moved ever so slightly to the right in the most recent redistricting, greatly disappointing the Boebert haters in both parties. However that minor adjustment is not nearly enough to create a safe environment for Boebert or any Republican. A typical Republican should be favored here, by just a little, but it will always be in the toss-up range. Particularly for GOP candidates designated as "controversial" by the Democrat media. A RINO might get 55% here now, or that approach may backfire as voters pick a real liberal instead of the wannabe liberal; a conservative is going to have to work hard for their 51%.


Colorado U.S. House Lauren Boebert

7/11/2023: Mayra Flores Launches Comeback Bid in Texas [Breitbart]

Photo credit: Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

You'll remember Flores from June of 2022 when she scored a historic upset victory in a heavily-Mexican south Texas district (CD-34) which had never before been won by anything other than a Democrat. The old version of the 34th district in which Flores won that 4-way special election 13 months ago was pretty much a tossup and had trended slightly to the right as of 2020. Special elections are always prone to fluke outcomes due to low turnout, but the flukes usually favor the left. This one didn't.

When a Democrat wins a fluke special election, the party normally goes all-in to see that the fluke outcome becomes the "new normal" outcome and they quite often succeed; examples abound in recent decades. A Republican who registers a win like that is rare enough and holding the seat for more than a few months is even rarer, so what happened in TX-34 last November was anything but a shock when Flores lost to a well-funded Democrat by 7½ points.

As to the facts about this area, the current version of the 34th district in which Flores lost the general election in November of 2022 was moved about 5 points to the left -- by Republicans -- in redistricting. That's why Democrat Vicente Gonzalez, who was the incumbent in the adjacent 15th district, packed up his carpetbag and slithered over to the new 34th. The new 15th district was moved 2 or 3 points to the right and the GOP did pick that one up last November and hopefully will be able to hold it in the future.

Texas has no party registration but the current 34th is probably somewhere around 2 to 1, or worse, in favor of Democrats. Some of those D's occasionally vote R (slightly more so now than in the past); most do not.


Mayra Flores Texas U.S. House Historic upset Redistricting

3/10/2023: 2024 election: 29 House lawmakers Democrats fear could lose their seats next year [Washington Examiner]

From the article:

"The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee announced on Friday 29 members it is placing in its front-line program aimed at helping incumbent lawmakers in swing districts retain their seats as the party looks to flip back control of the lower chamber in 2024. The list includes familiar names from swing districts during the 2022 cycle, in which Democrats exceeded pollsters' and political forecasters' projections by fending off a red wave. Democrats will once again have to protect their seats and pick up five more to retake the House next year."

Half of the Democrats who are mentioned are freshmen and the other half are liberal incumbents who are too far left for their marginal districts, regardless of how much these Democrats pretend to be "moderate" around election time.

The Democrat representatives who are said to be most vulnerable:
(from the linked article)

Mary Peltola (AK)
Mike Levin (CA)
Yadira Caraveo (CO)
Jahana Hayes (CT)
Nikki Budzinski (IL)
Eric Sorensen (IL)
Frank Mrvan (IN)
Sharice Davids (KS)
Jared Golden (ME)
Hillary Scholten (MI)
Dan Kildee (MI)
Angie Craig (MN)
Don Davis (NC)
Wiley Nickel (NC)
Chris Pappas (NH)
Gabriel Vasquez (NM)
Susie Lee (NV)
Steven Horsford (NV)
Pat Ryan (NY)
Greg Landsman (OH)
Marcy Kaptur (OH)
Emilia Sykes (OH)
Andrea Salinas (OR)
Susan Wild (PA)
Matt Cartwright (PA)
Chris Deluzio (PA)
Abigail Spanberger (VA)
Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (WA)
Kim Schrier (WA)

It's going to take a much better performance from the GOP than we saw in 2022 to dislodge most of those; otherwise pretty much all of them are fairly safe; just not AS safe as other Democrats.

Coincidentally, we count just about exactly the same number of vulnerable Republicans in the House. Neither of these two lists of marignal districts are exhaustive, but the 60 or so races that are highlighted will be the major battlegrounds in 2024, while about 95% of the other 375 districts will be as competitive as they usually are (i.e., not at all).

As with the Democrat list, half of the Republicans shown below are newly-elected and the other half are incumbents in districts that could swing either way. If all goes as expected -- which it never does, in case you have already forgotten the alleged GOP "wave" that instead trickled down to almost nothing in 2022 -- we'd forecast a win in approximately half of these, which means a net change of not very much in the House. But "not very much" is all that's needed for the Republicans to lose their narrow edge here. In our opinion the names which follow are, on average, in greater danger of losing in 2024 than most of the 29 Democrats enumerated above, though political conditions may change substantially in the next 18 months.

We anticipate these GOP representatives to be most heavily targeted in '24:

David Schweikert (AZ)
Juan Ciscomani (AZ)
John Duarte (CA)
David Valadao (CA)
Mike Garcia (CA)
Young Kim (CA)
Ken Calvert (CA)
Michelle Steel (CA)
Lauren Boebert (CO)
Anna Paulina Luna (FL) -- she'll probably get slimed in the primary too since the GOPe squishes hate her
Any of the 4 GOP incumbents (except Feenstra) in Iowa
Andy Harris (MD)
John James (MI)
Brad Finstad (MN)
Ann Wagner (MO)
Ryan Zinke (MT)
Don Bacon (NE)
Tom Kean Jr. (NJ)
George Santos (NY)
Anthony D'Esposito (NY)
Mike Lawler (NY)
Marc Molinaro (NY)
Brandon Williams (NY) New York could be a real bloodbath in 2024, as bad as California.
Lori Chavez-DeRemer (OR)
Scott Perry (PA)
Monica de la Cruz (TX)
Tony Gonzales (TX) he'll be challenged by a conservative in the primary, which is good; Gonzales is garbage.
Jen Kiggans (VA)

As it gets closer to 2024 we'll be keeping an eye on the quality of opponents these representatives get and the amount of $$$$ the combatants come up with; chances are the level of competition will be high and Democrats will spare no expense -- not only playing defense for their 29 most endangered liberals, but playing serious offense in their quest to take back control of the entire federal government.


U.S. House 2024 Vulnerable incumbents

1/6/2023: Judges order South Carolina to redraw congressional map [Roll Call]

Photo credit: Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call

And so it begins.

We warned you months ago regarding redistricting that "The battle (just like counting votes in a close election) often never ends until the Democrat wins, and several lawsuits are still pending which, if successful, would result in Democrat gains."

Now, a trio of ultra-liberal Democrat judges have mystically divined the "intent" of Republicans who drew the new district lines in South Carolina and, what a surprise, they have arbitrarily decided that those Republicans were "racist"! To these black-robed tyrants, this alleged racism means that the Republican-created district map is invalid and therefore must be redrawn in order to give the Democrats the best possible chance of flipping at least one South Carolina congressional district in 2024 and beyond.

Democrat racists will hardly be content to mandate a new Democrat gerrymander in just this state alone, and so you better get ready for similar actions in numerous other states -- pretty much any other state in which Republicans controlled the redistricting process. OTOH, you need not be concerned about Republican lawsuits (if any even exist) attempting to overturn hyper-partisan Democrat gerrymanders in places such as Illinois, California, Oregon, New Jersey, Massachusetts, New Mexico, etc.

Any GOP lawsuits which might someday arise in places like those will be quickly dismissed for "lack of standing" -- with perhaps one exception. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed a few months ago to eventually hear arguments that Democrat judges had illegally seized the redistricting process in North Carolina from the rightful control of the GOP legislature (which is exactly what those judges did). This has Democrats slightly concerned that their similar illegal power plays might be jeopardized elsewhere, but there is no evidence of this yet and the Democrats' partisan gerrymander in North Carolina still exists for now.


U.S. House South Carolina Judicial gerrymandering

11/29/2022: [Virginia] House Democratic Rep. Donald McEachin dies at 61 [ABC27]

Photo credit: abc27.com

Myth #1: Republican Governor Glenn Youngkin gets to appoint a replacement, which means the GOP gains a seat!!!

Fact: Governors never get to make appointments for House vacancies, only Senate vacancies.

Myth #2: OK, then we'll just win the special election!!! We're motivated!!! We're inspired!!!

Fact: Republicans have approximately a 0% chance of winning this D+16 district.

Youngkin at least ought to delay the special election for as long as possible just to forestall the inevitable Democrat win. This district (CD-4) up through 2016 was historically represented by a Republican or by a moderate-to-conservative Democrat (back when conservative or even moderate Democrats actually existed).

This district as currently configured was designed by judicial fiat in 2016, specifically to transfer the seat from Republican to Democrat hands. Republicans thought they had taken care of things in the 2011 redistricting, but a liberal judge told them they were wrong a few years later.

Along those same lines, the 2 states which had the happiest outcomes in the House on November 8th -- Florida and New York -- are both likely to have the same thing done to them as was done in Virginia and also occurred in Florida, North Carolina and Pennsylvania during the past decade: there will be new district maps, mandated by liberal Democrat judges, with the new maps deliberately designed for the sole purpose of flipping as many House seats as possible from R to D under the guise of "racial equality" or something equally fatuous.

Don't be at all surprised if/when it happens; the GOPe better enjoy its "control" of the House while it lasts.


U.S. House Virginia Special election 2023

11/7/2022: Final 2022 election predictions! [RightDataUSA]

Sorry we've been out of touch for a couple of months (family issues), but here are some realistic predictions for what will happen Tuesday.

Tl;dr version for those with insufficient attention spans or an aversion to being realistic: the delusionals have worked themselves up into such a frenzy that even GOOD news -- Republicans going +15 or +20 and winning the House and maybe picking up a seat or two and perhaps taking control of the Senate -- will be viewed as major disappointments by those who actually believe outlier polls, people who reflexively add 10 points to GOP candidates in polls just because, and people who take ludicrous "predictions" by sources such as Newt Gingrich and Dickie Morris seriously.


The most likely reasonable expectation is in the range of GOP -1 to GOP +1. This may sound unimpressive or pessimistic, but then reality IS normally more unimpressive than fantasy. It's not totally pessimistic either: we'll assume that Republicans hold their pair of highly endangered and marginal seats in North Carolina and Wisconsin, outcomes which are very far from certainties.

The most likely path to the -1 to +1 range is: Oz loses PA (which he will, after appearing to be winning substantially on Tuesday night) and the Republicans pick up either 0, 1 or 2 of Nevada and New Hampshire. An upset is possible but Walker will most likely lose in a runoff in Georgia, other races may be close-but-no-cigar (such as Arizona), and only if a 1994-style massacre of Democrats occurs is there any plausible chance for pickups in places like Colorado and Washington. Of the 2 Democrat-held seats which are actually tossups, Nevada is a better bet for GOP success than New Hampshire (even the right-leaning shills at Real Clear Politics have conceded that Bolduc will not win), and Nevada is pretty tenuous.

Final Senate note: if partisan control hangs in the balance, i.e. if Republicans end up with a 51-49 majority, the filthy whore from Alaska (who will win re-election easily), will sell herself to the highest bidder like all filthy whores do; that high bidder will be the Democrats. A la Judas Jim Jeffords 20 years ago, Murkowski will switch sides and give the Democrats control. If we want REAL control we need to get to 52 somehow.


Maryland and Massachusetts are already foregone conclusions to flip from R to D and another significant possibility to do the same thing is Oklahoma. In the end, we'll guess that Stitt wins by an extremely small margin and holds Oklahoma for the GOP.

Among currently D-held seats, Pennsylvania is a lost cause but we predict the Republicans will pick up Nevada; however it better not be too close because Republicans almost never win close elections in Nevada.

Sadly, MAGA heroine Kari Lake will lose in Arizona simply because she cannot be allowed to win; she's too good. If she somehow slips through the cracks in Katie Hobbs' Fraud Machine (it's so cute that people think the Rats can't cheat because "Weer Wotching" more closely than in 2020) and ekes out a win, Lake will not be allowed to govern. Remember Evan Mechem? Lake will be Evan Mechem 2.0. The Democrats, the Democrat media and the RINO elites in Lake's own party will see to it and are probably already preparing for it by fabricating the Kari Lake version of the "Steele Dossier".

All other seats will probably be status quo though there is a decent opportunity for Tim Michels to defeat soyboi Tony Evers in Wisconsin. Republicans will blow it in Kansas, which should have been an easy pickup, and the Oregon pipe dream will turn out to be a pipe bomb as support for the "independent" Democrat who was splitting the D vote has evaporated, and her supporters have flocked back like sheep to the nutzoid D candidate. It was fun while it lasted and the final outcome will be close, but this is Oregon. Other states -- notably New York -- will be much closer than they usually are, but all realistic odds favor Democrat holds in that state and in Maine, Minnesota, Michigan, New Mexico and Colorado. Will Illinois flip, as some seem to believe? That's precious.


The realistic floor for the GOP is somewhere around +10, and that's sufficient to take control but as mentioned above would be considered a crushing disappointment if that's all we get. If we see less than +10, or worse yet we see panicky Democrat predictions of gains coming true, then we know that Democrat fraud is working better than ever.

A sensible outcome without going too far overboard with the purely wishful thinking is GOP +15 to maybe as much as +20 (I know, I know, that's STILL a massive downer); anyone who truly believes, despite no evidence whatsoever, that +50, +75, +100 is viable, will need to up their meds starting Wednesday.

Newly created seats in Florida, Texas (1 of the 2 new seats), Montana and Colorado will go our way, offset by GOP reapportionment losses in places like New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Michigan and West Virginia along with D pickups of new seats in states such as Oregon and North Carolina. Florida will be the biggest win for our side, as the delegation goes from 16-11 in our favor to 20-8. Arizona might see a pickup of 2 House seats for the GOP even as both statewide Republican candidates are being frauded out of their wins.

Democrat incumbents (through defeat on Tuesday, or retirement, or redistricting) will be ousted in Wisconsin, Tennessee, Georgia, New Jersey, Ohio (Tim Ryan's old district), perhaps Iowa. There are possibilities of capturing marginal tossup Democrat-held districts in Alaska, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Nevada. There are lesser chances, but still possible pickups, in Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Maine, Maryland, and a few others. Ideas of GOP seizures of numerous endangered Democrat seats in places like Illinois and New York are nothing but illusions and not even a single pickup will result (well, maybe 1 at most) absent a "red wave" of enormous proportions.

There are only 2 GOP-held seats which are in any real danger of being lost -- unless Democrat "ballot harvesting" fraud in California claims a whole bunch more, as it did in 2018 and very well might again in 2022 -- and those 2 are Mayra Flores in TX-34 and John Gibbs in MI-3. Both are in tough fights, and Gibbs in particular will go down to defeat as the GOP establishment abandoned him the moment he defeated Trump-hating weasel Peter Meijer in the primary. As always, the GOPe would greatly prefer a liberal Democrat to a MAGA conservative.

If we have to pick a specific final number in the House, we'll go with lucky +13. We'd be delighted to be wrong about some of this (particularly Kari Lake) but we prefer predictions based in reality rather than fantasy.


U.S. House Senate 2022 Take back the House But not the Senate

8/24/2022: Pat Ryan (D) defeats Marc Molinaro (R) in special election in NY-19 [Albany Times Union]

Photo credit: Tony Adamis/Special to the Times Union

Anyone assuming that Republicans are going to win most of the close ones in November is delusional. We have to turn out in numbers that make these races far less close.

Four years ago, in the highest-turnout midterm election in U.S. history, the GOP was annihilated and some presumed it was because Republicans weren't motivated (wrong) while the Rats were highly motivated by their hatred of Trump (bingo). R turnout was actually up substantially that year over where it had been in 2014; but D turnout was absolutely off the charts.

The days of Republicans being able to run the table in comparatively low-turnout midterms such as 1994, 2010 and 2014 are over. 2018 is the new midterm turnout model, and 2022's turnout in November (at least on the left) is going to be "2018 on steroids".

The GOP establishment, the ones who control the ad buys and the purse strings and who normally support only liberals and moderates while giving the shaft to conservatives, better get on the ball and run good, effective, hard-hitting ads anywhere the Democrat-controlled media will permit them to run -- and run them for ALL candidates, not just their RINO pets -- and try to get Republican enthusiasm to be as great as Democrat enthusiasm. It wasn't in 2018, it wasn't in 2020, and we're heading for a repeat in 2022.

If they don't get on the ball (and surely we can count on Ronna Romney, Mitch McConnell and the RNC/NRSC to do the right thing, LOL) then there are going to be a lot of so-called experts with dazed expressions on their faces on November 9th, looking around helplessly and wondering where "muh red wave" disappeared to.


U.S. House New York Special election 2022 Bad candidate Narrow loss

8/24/2022: [Florida] Anna Paulina Luna defeats Kevin Hayslett for CD 13 GOP nomination [Florida Politics]

Luna's victory in CD-13 is great, especially because the GOP simps hate her, and the school board election results in Florida (the good guys won some big ones!) are getting a lot of hype today, which is another noteworthy outcome. But as for the Republican congressional primaries in Florida, how are real conservatives supposed to be enthused by a bunch of squishes being nominated everywhere aside from CD-13?

Laura Loomer made it close but lost to ultra-squish Daniel Webster in CD-11, and Anthony Sabatini lost in CD-7 so the GOPe liberals are breathing huge sighs of relief about dodging those two conservative bullets. Lavern Spicer lost in CD-24, a district which no Republican could possibly win in November anyway so that's not a real big deal.

OTOH "moderate" incumbents across the board won in landslides mainly because, aside from Webster, they were facing no serious challengers: Carlos Gimenez, Maria Salazar, Mario Diaz-Balart, Michael Waltz, Vern Buchanan, some would add Gus Bilirakis to the RINO list.... none of them even had to break a sweat. They all had challengers, but none with sufficient funding or name recogntion to have any impact at all.

Conservatives are told that primary elections are the place to make themselves heard, because afterwards party unity is of paramount importance -- except when a conservative wins a primary, of course -- and we must hold our noses and vote for any liberal who happens to have a (R) after his name. More and more people are starting to realize that the fix is in as they notice how the establishment ensures that its candidates have massive financial advantages in the primaries, and how those same string-pullers often place phony conservatives on the ballot to split the vote of the party "base".


U.S. House Florida 2022 Anna Paulina Luna Squishes win elsewhere

8/12/2022: [Florida] America First Poll Shows Republican KW Miller With Double-Digit Lead Over RINO Carlos Gimenez In Florida's 28th District Primary Race [PR Newswire]

Photo credit: KW Miller for Congress

According to Ballotpedia, Trump has endorsed the RINO incumbent instead of the conservative challenger. This poll, not that it's particularly believable, might cause that endorsement to change. Not only is Gimenez a RINO who supports amnesty for illegal aliens, gun-grabbing and other liberal causes, he supported the J6 Kangaroo Kourt Kommittee even after Trump endorsed him in 2020.

Some people insist that Trump's endorsements of guaranteed-to-win-anyway Republican House incumbents have nothing to do with padding his winning percentage, but instead is a "6D Chess" maneuver to inspire loyalty from politicians who will always remember how Trump supported them (even when they didn't need it), and they will therefore support him in return.

Oh really? Here is a list of the other 15 House Republicans who Trump endorsed in 2020 and who then backstabbed him by voting for the Pelosi-Cheney-Kinzinger J6 lynch mob: Johnson (SD), Bice (OK), Moore (UT), Guest (MS), Bentz (OR), Simpson (ID), Fortenberry (NE), Newhouse (WA), Bacon (NE), Miller-Meeks (IA), Jacobs (NY), Gonzales (TX), Joyce (OH), Salazar (FL), Curtis (UT).

How's that for "loyalty", eh?

Fortenberry was ousted for some alleged technical violation that Democrats probably get away with every day, Jacobs supposedly ran away because some nutzoid leftist killed some people in Buffalo (near his district), and all of the others so far have safely won their primaries in 2022 despite their apostasy. There were 19 other Republicans who voted to persecute Trump, but at least he was smart enough not to have endorsed them previously.

8/24/2022 update: Miller lost by over 60 points. Believe lunatic polls at your own risk.


U.S. House Florida 2022 Backstabbing RINOs Lunatic poll

8/9/2022: [Wyoming] Data: Liz Cheney's Plan to Win GOP Primary with Democrat Votes Is Failing [Breitbart]

Photo credit: pbs.com

From the article: "Wyoming law states that voters must be affiliated with a particular party to vote in that party's primary election - but voters can change their party registration on primary Election Day or any time leading up to it. In other words, it is essentially an open primary."

Wyoming is not unique in this area, though other states with ostensibly "closed" primaries may have different deadlines for party-switching. The folks who concern themselves with "Open or closed primary??!11??" or "ALL PRIMARIES SHOULD BE CLOAZED!!" may as well finally begin to understand that the bolded part above applies to every state now. There is effectively no such thing as a closed primary anymore, anywhere.

In this particular case, the lack of a truly closed primary isn't going to save Cheney's RINO ass no matter how much she goes around desperately begging for the votes of liberals of both parties. In other states however, Democrat infiltration of Republican primaries has had significant effects even if those effects did not always alter the outcome.


U.S. House Wyoming 2022 Liz Cheney Dead RINO J6 Kangaroo Kourt Klown

8/1/2022: [Michigan] Moderate GOP Rep. Peter Meijer Trashes Dems for Bankrolling His MAGA Foe in Scathing Op-Ed: Selling Out 'Any Pretense of Principle' [MSN]

The article claims that "Democrats have been financially backing MAGA GOP candidates this primary cycle in order to have a better shot at beating them ahead of an expected Republican wave in November." In this case, that assertion smells like bullshit. As of July 13 Gibbs had less than $150,000 cash on hand and Meijer had about 6x as much. Those must be some pretty stingy Democrat contributors.

Two facts:

1. If (more likely when) Gibbs defeats Meijer on Tuesday, he really better count on Democrats for further funding because the petulant spiteful RNC sure ain't gonna come across. They would much rather lose this seat than support a conservative who just slaughtered one of their pet RINOs.

2. This district was moved a few notches to the left in redistricting so now any Republican starts off as the underdog in a general election. Especially when the ultra-liberal Democrat in the race has all the money in the world to campaign with and doesn't even have to spend a dime of it in the primary because she's unopposed.

The district is not so far left that a Republican can't possibly win, and money alone doesn't always determine the outcome of a race, but when the imbalance is as massive as this one will be it's going to take a substantial blue wave to pull off the upset here.


U.S. House Michigan 2022 Silver-spoon RINO Peter Meijer Going down

7/27/2022: [Michigan] GOP's Meijer voted to impeach Trump. Now Democrats are helping his Trump-backed GOP primary opponent [Washington Post]

Even better, true conservatives are supporting Gibbs too. The liberals and RINOs are both hoping that Gibbs will lose in November against the ultra-liberal and very well-funded Rat. The redistricting process also worked against Republicans here, as this district which encompasses the rapidly-deteriorating Grand Rapids area was shifted several points to the left and now favors Democrats.

Even so, at least one poll shows that Gibbs would fare much better than the spoiled little rich boy who voted for impeachment. However this will take money, and Gibbs doesn't have a family fortune to fall back on, nor can he count on funding from big-$$$$ RINO GOP donors after he wins the primary next week.

Gibbs is going to be outspent heavily while his opponent gets 24/7 free support from the media. Despite all that, he can and will win if RINO voters in his district are able to suppress their disgust at one of their own kind losing his primary. We're told by the GOP establishment (when it suits them) that party unity in general elections is of paramount importance. Let's see how well they prove it in this case.


U.S. House Michigan 2022 RINO backstabber Loser