Republican Mayra Flores prevailed Tuesday in a special election for an open congressional seat in South Texas, marking a major breakthrough for Republicans eager to blaze new inroads in the historically blue region.
She beat Dan Sanchez, the leading Democrat, outright in the closely watched race and will be the first Mexican-born congresswoman. She will get to serve only until January, but Republicans heralded her win as a shot of momentum in their new South Texas offensive.
With all precincts reporting Tuesday night, Flores had 50.98% of the vote and Sanchez had 43.33%. There were two other, lesser-known candidates — Democrat Rene Coronado and Republican Juana “Janie” Cantu-Cabrera — in the race.
Sanchez is a Harlingen lawyer and former Cameron County commissioner, while Flores, a respiratory therapist, is the Republican nominee for the seat in November.
And I know what you're thinking..."wow, a Republican won in Texas? Well blow me down." But it's important to understand that the 34th district was specifically created to concentrate Democratic voters. It was literally designed to never be anything but blue. Back when it was created in 2013, the Democrat won with 62% of the vote. Just a year ago, the Democrats were still comfortably ahead ..55 to 40. But last night Mayra crushed it 50-43. Democrats somehow lost almost 15 points in just a year.
There's always the danger of reading too much into a special election - there are lots of things about special elections that don't translate particularly well to the general. But I can't help but think that this forewarns of incredible headwinds that the Democrats are likely to face in November.
/. "She climbed backwards out her
\/ window into Outside Over There."
COLUMBIA, S.C. — Republican Nancy Mace defeated Katie Arrington in one of South Carolina’s most hotly-contested primary congressional races Tuesday night, delivering another setback to Donald Trump’s primary endorsement record.
That is very, very little good news. The other closely watched race here was Tom Rice who lost to a Trump backed candidate. Rice was an outspoken Rep. critic of Trump and voted to impeach him. Mace was a critic, but did not vote to impeach.
Smoove_B wrote: ↑Sun Jun 26, 2022 4:16 pm
Maybe - I'll believe it when I see it. Because there sure as hell were a significant number that voted for him in 2016 and again 2020.
As long as Trump controls the GOP, and the majority of mouth breathing, racist, homophobic assholes who want to drag this country back to pre civil rights era America follow him with erect nipples, they will win. We need to divide the Republican Party. Weaken them by making them choose between DeSantis and Trump as time goes by. If we can get a third option for them, all the better. Divide and conquer.
Carpet_pissr wrote: ↑Mon Jun 27, 2022 12:58 am
DeSantis seems quite Trumpy though.
For better or worse, DeSantis is not Trump. He's an actual politician, and thus is far better at using the powers at his disposal. But he doesn't have the same cult forming draw that Trump has. I'm not sure which is worse.
/. "She climbed backwards out her
\/ window into Outside Over There."
Carpet_pissr wrote: ↑Mon Jun 27, 2022 12:58 am
DeSantis seems quite Trumpy though.
For better or worse, DeSantis is not Trump. He's an actual politician, and thus is far better at using the powers at his disposal. But he doesn't have the same cult forming draw that Trump has. I'm not sure which is worse.
He’s populist and Trumpy, but without the hyper ego Achilles heel that Trump has.
malchior wrote: ↑Mon Jun 27, 2022 4:18 am
He's also vengeful, petty, and not afraid to use his power and/or agencies to retaliate which is fun.
Right - that’s the ‘Trumpy’ part I was referring to.
The funny/sad thing is when you use a term like ‘Trumpy’ or ‘Trumpism’ you’re only really talking about personality traits and behaviors because there is zero ‘policy’ to speak of.
Carpet_pissr wrote: ↑Mon Jun 27, 2022 12:58 am
DeSantis seems quite Trumpy though.
For better or worse, DeSantis is not Trump. He's an actual politician, and thus is far better at using the powers at his disposal. But he doesn't have the same cult forming draw that Trump has. I'm not sure which is worse.
DeSantis is FAR worse than Trump.
Remember the talk about how Trump was bad, but he was too stupid to be truly dangerous? DeSantis is that smarter version of Trump, and the conservatives here in Florida LOVE him.
He's already abusing that power at the state level, imagine what he would do as President?
I don't even think you'll have to wait long to find out. He's the likely R-candidate if Trump doesn't get the nomination, and the only person in this country that Biden might be able to beat is Trump.
More Democrats than Republicans questioned in a new survey say they are more likely to vote in the midterm elections after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade on Friday.
The NPR/PBS NewsHour Marist poll, published on Monday, found that 78 percent of Democrats said they are more likely to vote in this year’s midterms in response to the ruling, which opened the door to state bans on abortion.
When asked the same question, 54 percent of Republican respondents said they are more likely to vote in November, while 53 percent of independents agreed.
Eighty-eight percent of Democrats, meanwhile, said they strongly oppose the Supreme Court’s ruling on abortion, as did 53 percent of independents.
By comparison, 77 percent of Republican respondents said they support the ruling, while 10 percent opposed it.
/. "She climbed backwards out her
\/ window into Outside Over There."
To be fair, it is highly relevant to know how well McCormick would be polling. If McCormick would be 4 points up right now, then boosting Mastriano would probably be the correct decision.
malchior wrote: ↑Mon Jun 27, 2022 11:42 am
It bears to remark that this is the candidate the Democrats themselves boosted because he was "less electable".
But that still is in line with that strategy. Our candidate vs. a complete piece of garbage... if they pick the complete piece of garbage, we know we've truly lost.
The other guy might have just simply won (without as much baggage), and then also fell in line with the GOP as they all do.
I do think one strategic error of the conservative movement (I hope, I HOPE!) is that they are making the country Very Much aware of State Legislation all of a sudden. People that have enjoyed Federal protection are now about to realize they need to be more focused on turning their votes locally in line with their needs/desires for these protections.
This at a time, when I think they were getting very close to getting the whole State Legislation game totally in their pocket. The timing is poor for them to shine a light on where people are now exposed. I hope it bites them right where they need it.
El Guapo wrote: ↑Mon Jun 27, 2022 11:46 am
To be fair, it is highly relevant to know how well McCormick would be polling. If McCormick would be 4 points up right now, then boosting Mastriano would probably be the correct decision.
I don't think that is a fair read. It's unknowable. Instead I'd (re-)argue this was a pretty big failure of risk management. The Democrats didn't have to boost anyone. They made a choice to boost an extremist candidate at a time when the winds would be very favorable for that type of candidate. It was incredibly reckless and if/when Mastriano wins, it'll be cold comfort to say a Republican would have won anyway when that Republican isn't anywhere near as radical as this guy.
El Guapo wrote: ↑Mon Jun 27, 2022 11:46 am
To be fair, it is highly relevant to know how well McCormick would be polling. If McCormick would be 4 points up right now, then boosting Mastriano would probably be the correct decision.
I don't think that is a fair read. It's unknowable. Instead I'd (re-)argue this was a pretty big failure of risk management. The Democrats didn't have to boost anyone. They made a choice to boost an extremist candidate at a time when the winds would be very favorable for that type of candidate. It was incredibly reckless and if/when Mastriano wins, it'll be cold comfort to say a Republican would have won anyway when that Republican isn't anywhere near as radical as this guy.
Honestly I don't care that much about this issue since what's done is done, and I don't know whether Democrats efforts were material or not. All I'm saying is that I don't think you can make a fair risk management assessment without *some* estimate (even if it's ballpark) about McCormick's electoral prospects.
Like at a conceptual level, if you told me that McCormick had an 80% chance of winning in November while Mastriano has a 20% chance of winning, then I'd say it's a slam dunk that I'd rather have Mastriano as the GOP nominee, since my assessment of the difference how they'll behave in office on electoral shenanigans is significantly smaller than that gap. That's also a reflection of how pessimistic I am now about how "moderate" republicans will behave in office.
Unagi wrote: ↑Mon Jun 27, 2022 12:20 pm
I do think one strategic error of the conservative movement (I hope, I HOPE!) is that they are making the country Very Much aware of State Legislation all of a sudden. People that have enjoyed Federal protection are now about to realize they need to be more focused on turning their votes locally in line with their needs/desires for these protections.
This at a time, when I think they were getting very close to getting the whole State Legislation game totally in their pocket. The timing is poor for them to shine a light on where people are now exposed. I hope it bites them right where they need it.
I'd counterpoint that this is exactly the RIGHT MOMENT to do this. One it's a mid-term. It favors the party not in power. Two it is early enough for the shock to wear off. And three they are leaning into a nation in deep turmoil with an extremely unpopular President. This is the moment to take your shots. The Republicans have much to gain by pointing out that Biden can't govern. The populace doesn't seem to know what is going on. That's on the media quite a bit but it's probably the reality of things.
El Guapo wrote: ↑Mon Jun 27, 2022 11:46 am
To be fair, it is highly relevant to know how well McCormick would be polling. If McCormick would be 4 points up right now, then boosting Mastriano would probably be the correct decision.
I don't think that is a fair read. It's unknowable. Instead I'd (re-)argue this was a pretty big failure of risk management. The Democrats didn't have to boost anyone. They made a choice to boost an extremist candidate at a time when the winds would be very favorable for that type of candidate. It was incredibly reckless and if/when Mastriano wins, it'll be cold comfort to say a Republican would have won anyway when that Republican isn't anywhere near as radical as this guy.
Honestly I don't care that much about this issue since what's done is done, and I don't know whether Democrats efforts were material or not. All I'm saying is that I don't think you can make a fair risk management assessment without *some* estimate (even if it's ballpark) about McCormick's electoral prospects.
Like at a conceptual level, if you told me that McCormick had an 80% chance of winning in November while Mastriano has a 20% chance of winning, then I'd say it's a slam dunk that I'd rather have Mastriano as the GOP nominee, since my assessment of the difference how they'll behave in office on electoral shenanigans is significantly smaller than that gap. That's also a reflection of how pessimistic I am now about how "moderate" republicans will behave in office.
I get what you are saying. What I am saying is I think that still reflects terrible risk management. The question shouldn't *alone* be who maximizes our chances. It also has to factor in the extreme consequences irrespective of whether they indeed materially gave Mastriano a chance. They shouldn't be taking these risks. I also disagree that the in-office shenanigans aren't going to be different. One was literally at 1/6 and was deep inside of efforts to overturn the election. Barletta (2nd place) for all his potential foibles wasn't known to be extreme at all.
This issue presents volatility into the 2022 midterms, because 78% of Democrats say the court's decision makes them more likely to vote this fall, 24 points higher than Republicans.
A bare majority of 51% say they would definitely vote for a candidate who would support a federal law to restore the right to an abortion, while 36% would definitely vote against such a candidate.
That could be a shot in the arm for Democrats if they mobilize around this issue, though Republicans are still favored at this point to take back the House this fall because of high inflation and gas prices.
The Supreme Court's majority and dissent opinions on Dobbs reveal a massive schism
Democrats have regained the favor of voters to control Congress, with 48% saying they are more likely to vote for a Democratic candidate in the fall and 41% more likely to vote for a Republican. In April, Republicans led on that question in the poll 47% to 44%, which was within the margin of error. However, the lead for Democrats may not translate into maintaining control due to the way voters are geographically distributed and how boundaries of congressional districts are drawn.
As we've seen over and over again on various issues, good poll results don't necessarily translate into effective votes. But going up in the polls is never a bad thing.
/. "She climbed backwards out her
\/ window into Outside Over There."
I share malchior's concern - everybody's mad now, but will they still be mad in November? I want to believe that abortion is too big an issue to be forgotten, but I've stopped predicting anything in this timeline.
A legitimate question. Historically, Americans have short-term memories on a lot of stuff, and inflation is very likely to keep generating significant headwinds for Democrats on a daily basis.
That said, abortion is one of the few issues that is an exception to this pattern, at least on the right. The March for Life has generally grown every year since 1974, despite abortion foes making very little progress for most of that time.
/. "She climbed backwards out her
\/ window into Outside Over There."
YellowKing wrote: ↑Mon Jun 27, 2022 2:23 pm
I share malchior's concern - everybody's mad now, but will they still be mad in November? I want to believe that abortion is too big an issue to be forgotten, but I've stopped predicting anything in this timeline.
I'm sure they'll be mad...about many things. That's why I agree predicting the shape of things is impossible. We're a nation facing chaotic outcomes - even from formerly trusted institutions. That's about the only thing we can rely on. That things will keep changing wildly.
A political shift is beginning to take hold across the U.S. as tens of thousands of suburban swing voters who helped fuel the Democratic Party's gains in recent years are becoming Republicans.
More than 1 million voters across 43 states have switched to the Republican Party over the last year, according to voter registration data analyzed by The Associated Press. The previously unreported number reflects a phenomenon that is playing out in virtually every region of the country — Democratic and Republican states along with cities and small towns — in the period since President Joe Biden replaced former President Donald Trump.
But nowhere is the shift more pronounced — and dangerous for Democrats — than in the suburbs, where well-educated swing voters who turned against Trump's Republican Party in recent years appear to be swinging back. Over the last year, far more people are switching to the GOP across suburban counties from Denver to Atlanta and Pittsburgh and Cleveland. Republicans also gained ground in counties around medium-size cities such as Harrisburg, Pennsylvania; Raleigh, North Carolina; Augusta, Georgia; and Des Moines, Iowa.
Ben Smith, who lives in suburban Larimer County, Colorado, north of Denver, said he reluctantly registered as a Republican earlier in the year after becoming increasingly concerned about the Democrats' support in some localities for mandatory COVID-19 vaccines, the party's inability to quell violent crime and its frequent focus on racial justice.
...
Republicans benefited last year as suburban parents grew increasingly frustrated by prolonged pandemic-related schools closures. And as inflation intensified more recently, the Republican National Committee has been hosting voter registration events at gas stations in suburban areas across swing states like Arizona, Michigan, Nevada and Pennsylvania to link the Biden administration to record-high gas prices. The GOP has also linked the Democratic president to an ongoing baby formula shortage.
...
mily Seidel, who leads the Koch-backed grassroots organization Americans for Prosperity, said her network is seeing first-hand that suburban voters are distancing themselves from Democrats who represent "extreme policy positions.”
“But that doesn’t mean that they’re ready to vote against those lawmakers either. Frankly, they’re skeptical of both options that they have,” Seidel said. “The lesson here: Candidates have to make their case, they have to give voters something to be for, not just something to be against.”
Back in Larimer County, Colorado, 39-year-old homemaker Jessica Kroells says she can no longer vote for Democrats, despite being a reliable Democratic voter up until 2016.
There was not a single “aha moment” that convinced her to switch, but by 2020, she said the Democratic Party had “left me behind.”
“The party itself in no longer Democrat, it's progressive socialism,” she said, specifically condemning Biden's plan to eliminate billions of dollars in student debt.
/. "She climbed backwards out her
\/ window into Outside Over There."
Back in Larimer County, Colorado, 39-year-old homemaker Jessica Kroells says she can no longer vote for Democrats, despite being a reliable Democratic voter up until 2016.
There was not a single “aha moment” that convinced her to switch, but by 2020, she said the Democratic Party had “left me behind.”
“The party itself in no longer Democrat, it's progressive socialism,” she said, specifically condemning Biden's plan to eliminate billions of dollars in student debt.
It is not hard to reverse engineer where folks like this are getting their information. This isn't some organic thing. Folks are being inundated with propaganda and misinformation. I also am quite dubious about anecdotes like this that lack context. Is this one person or a movement? You can't figure it out but it sounds 'very serious'. Then you look around at what 'very serious' has wrought and let's say it isn't very convincing. Biden is 'very serious' (despite the protestations) and he is extremely unpopular.
Ben Smith, who lives in suburban Larimer County, Colorado, north of Denver, said he reluctantly registered as a Republican earlier in the year after becoming increasingly concerned about the Democrats' support in some localities for mandatory COVID-19 vaccines, the party's inability to quell violent crime and its frequent focus on racial justice.
Sounds like this guy was a DINO from the get-go. If you're a racist anti-vaxxer, I'm not sure there should be any reluctance in registering Republican.
FWIW when I read anecdotes like this I can't help but think they've picked these outakes not because they are the average but because they are the outliers. In a time of click based journalism it sets off my bullshit sensor.
malchior wrote: ↑Mon Jun 27, 2022 3:49 pm
FWIW when I read anecdotes like this I can't help but think they've picked these outakes not because they are the average but because they are the outliers. In a time of click based journalism it sets off my bullshit sensor.
All the GOP has to do is tap into the "you can't tell me what to do" mentality that crosses political beliefs and magically they get all the anti-mask, anti-vax people. But what about abortion, isn't that telling people what to do? It is, but you're saving babies. If only masks and vaccines were about babies.
Pro-life politics in the United States used to be mostly posturing and positioning, the taking of extreme rhetorical positions at no real-world cost. Republicans in red states could enact bills that burdened women who sought abortions, knowing that many voters shrugged off these statutes and counted on the courts to protect women’s rights. Now the highest court has abdicated its protective role, and those voters will have to either submit to their legislature’s burdens or replace the legislators.
That will likely mean that every legislative race in every currently red state will become a referendum on how strictly to police the women of that state. If a Republican president is elected in 2024 and signs a national abortion restriction in 2025, then every House and Senate race will likewise become a referendum on policing women. I don’t imagine that will be a very comfortable situation for the pro-policing side. Republican politicians who indulged their pro-life allies as a low-cost way to mobilize voters who did not share the party’s economic agenda are about to discover that the costs have jumped, and that many of the voters who do share the party’s economic agenda care more about their intimate autonomy.
Abortion politics is about to transition from being the conservative ideologue’s proof of purity to the Republican politician’s most vexed and intractable quagmire. We may all be surprised at how rapidly the politicians start looking for some escape.
/. "She climbed backwards out her
\/ window into Outside Over There."
Sure, but we still don't know if telling ~50% of the population they potentially can't do something = telling everyone they must do something (vaccinate, mask). I'm confident there are still people that aren't motivated to do anything politically because in their minds the abortion issue isn't affecting them directly - they've never had one, never had a friend or family member that communicated to them about having one, etc...
The micro (taking away the ability to have safe access to an abortion) is somehow overshadowing the macro (denying body autonomy rights to ~50% of the population) and so there's a shoulder shrug.
I said it another thread, there's plenty of women that voted for Trump in 2016 and again in 2020 - knowing full well this outcome was on the table. I am having a hard time imagining the "blue wave" everyone is talking about. I mean, I know there's been a fear among GOP operatives, but having it actually happen? Maybe I'm just demoralized beyond repair, but I don't see it.
I think the cost for this should be so high that if I don't see an effect in 2022 turnout - I'll need to write this country off as toast for the next 20-30 years.
These rights were hard-won and that was done at a time when it wasn't likely to win and people could be forgiven for thinking there was no other way to live.
Now they think they can go back 50 years and just expect everyone that if here in the present to just 'take the hit' and sorta shrug it off in a couple of months. To me, that is looney. If that happens here, then - yeah, the country is going to come undone I think.
