Previous | Next
New polls:
Dem pickups: PA
GOP pickups: (None)
Sunken Lake
One week after the election, and nearly all of the major loose ends are tied up. The latest race to be decided is the Arizona gubernatorial race. As expected, given the gap between candidates and the small number of votes left to count, Katie Hobbs (D) has been called by all the major outlets as the winner, thus sending Kari Lake (R) to defeat.
As of Monday evening, Hobbs has 1,267,241 votes as compared to 1,247,859 for Lake, with 98% reporting. That works out to a gap of a little less than 20,000 votes with a little more than 51,000 outstanding. Lake would need something like 70% of the remaining vote at this point, which just ain't happening. And so, Hobbs is now your governor-elect.
Lake's loss comes despite the many advantages she had in this race. She's telegenic, and Hobbs really isn't. Lake ran a vigorous campaign that connected with the voters she was trying to reach and Hobbs really didn't. And Arizona is clearly willing to elect Republicans as governor. The sitting governor, Doug Ducey, is a Republican as are five of the last six people elected as governor of the Grand Canyon State. Lake's Achilles heel is that she is a nutter and a Trumper, and that just didn't play in Arizona.
At this point, we struggle to think of a place where an embrace of Trump and Trumpism is the difference between general election victory and general election defeat. Yes, in many places, Republican candidates have to kiss the ring in the primary. But after that point, Trump's support is somewhere between "useless" and "fatal." The only places where his candidates won were places where Republicans are effectively a shoo-in, like Indiana and Ohio. And even then, his support seems to have kept some races—like the Ohio Senate race—closer than they really should have been. It says something when Gov. Mike DeWine (R-OH) wins by 25, but Sen.-elect J.D. Vance (R-OH) wins by 6. Meanwhile, the former president was almost certainly fatal, over and over, in purple states.
Anyhow, once those crazy kids in Alaska finish counting their ranked-choice ballots, the country will have 26 Republican governors and 24 Democratic governors. That's rather different from just 4 years ago, when it was 33 Republicans, 16 Democrats and 1 independent (Bill Walker in Alaska). This cycle, the Democrats netted two seats. This may be the high-water mark for the blue team for a while, though. There are only three seats up next year, and one of them is in ruby-red Alabama, while the other two are Democratic-held seats that will be tough to hold (Louisiana and Kentucky). And then in 2024, it's almost all ruby-red states, mostly in the Great Plains.
And while Republicans will be disappointed to lose the Arizona governorship, they're right on the cusp of gaining control of the House. Here's our table:
| Outlet | Rep Seats | Dem Seats | Toss-ups | 24-hour Net Change |
| AP | 217 | 205 | 13 | Republicans +3 |
| The New York Times | 217 | 204 | 14 | Republicans +5 |
| The Wall Street Journal | 217 | 205 | 13 | Republicans +4 |
| Politico | 217 | 204 | 14 | Republicans +4 |
| FiveThirtyEight | 215 | 207 | 13 | Republicans +3 |
| CNN | 215 | 204 | 16 | Republicans +3 |
| Fox | 217 | 205 | 13 | Republicans +4 |
| ABC News | 215 | 207 | 13 | Republicans +4 |
| CBS News | 216 | 211 | 8 | Republicans +1 |
| NBC News | 220 | 215 | 0 | Republicans +2 |
NBC's plus/minus is now down to ±3.
The odds are pretty good that control of the House will be decided by the end of the day today. And in a development that will be particularly galling for Democrats, it could well be Rep. Lauren Boebert's (R-CO) victory that puts the Republicans over the top. (Z)
Let the Leadership Dance Begin
There are four leaders of their parties in Congress: Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA). When the 118th Congress commences on Jan. 3, 2023, you can be certain that Schumer will still be on this list. The others? For them, the future is at least a little bit hazy.
Let's start with the least hazy of the three, which is McConnell. The Kentucky Senator is getting up there in years, is not beloved by some members of his conference and he clearly made at least a few tactical errors in allocating funds this election cycle (e.g., less money to Ohio, more money to Nevada). Further, when a party suffers through a disappointing election cycle, there's always talk that heads need to roll. And so, several prominent senators—Ted Cruz (R-TX), Josh Hawley (R-MO), Ron Johnson (R-WI), Rick Scott (R-FL), Marco Rubio (R-FL), etc.—and several prominent conservatives, including Mark Meadows and Ginni Thomas, are demanding that the leadership vote for the next sitting of the U.S. Senate be delayed until after the Georgia runoff.
We don't believe that McConnell is actually in danger, at least not right now. The leadership elections are supposed to be on Wednesday, and the Minority Leader is no fool—he knows that holding off will just give his opponents time to try to find a viable challenger. So, he's been rallying his allies. And even if there is a delay, who exactly is going to replace him? Rick Scott was planning a challenge, but Rick Scott has long been delusional about how popular Rick Scott is. And now, having led the NRSC to a disastrous showing, even he knows he's got no hope of unseating McConnell. You can't beat someone with no one, and the anti-McConnell forces just don't have a candidate who can get 25 Republican senators.
Moving on, there is a bit more haze surrounding the future of Pelosi. She's not likely to be Speaker after Jan. 3 (see above), but she might remain as leader of the House Democrats. Or she might not. After all, she's up there in years, she's dealing the trauma of her husband having been attacked, and she made a soft promise to step aside after this term and let some of the young(er) whippersnappers move up the ranks.
That said, there are arguments for her remaining in place. It's not as fun to be a part of leadership when your party is in the minority, and the ambitious young(er) whippersnappers might want to wait until the Democrats retake the House (very possible in 2024). Further, if it's a narrowly divided House, Pelosi's cat-herding skills could be badly needed. Or, for that matter, her poking-Kevin-McCarthy-in-the-eye skills. And she might not want to give the mad hammerer what he wants by ending her political career. Pelosi is playing her cards close to the vest, though it may be instructive that Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) threw his support behind Pelosi yesterday. He's a progressive and is also one of the upwardly ambitious members of the Democratic caucus. So, if he's happy to have Pelosi back, that might a clue as to how other key Democrats are leaning. Recall that to be elected Speaker takes 218 votes, but to be elected as a party leader will only require 110 or so.
And then there is McCarthy. He's been looking in the mirror for 2+ years and seeing a Speaker of the House. So, he is desperate for this promotion, and has been whipping his conference in order to get them to line up behind him. But he's not going to get Democratic votes, and so he has to keep virtually all Republicans on board. Thus far, that is not looking promising. Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL), who's a giant windbag, but who is nonetheless dialed in when it comes to the Whackadoodle Caucus, declared yesterday that "there is a critical mass of people" who don't want McCarthy as speaker. Since "a critical mass" is going to end up being something like "three or more Republican representatives," that's very plausible.
We think that McCarthy is in some actual danger here. There's little chance that the 170 or so non-MAGAmaniac Republican House members agree to choose one of the nutters, like Jim Jordan (R-OH) or Andy Biggs (R-AZ), for Speaker (and Biggs has already announced a challenge, by the way). But it's entirely plausible that the Whackadoodle Caucus would be willing to just dig its heels in and render the House unable to function. Remember, for them, it's a good thing when the government does nothing. It's also entirely plausible that they would consider taking down McCarthy to be enough of a victory, and would agree to some non-McCarthy compromise candidate, like Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY).
And that is the recap of today's episode of As the Congress Turns. (Z)
Ronna Romney McDaniel Wants to Keep Her Job
Speaking of jockeying for position, RNC Chair Ronna Romney McDaniel had hinted at retirement, but now says she plans to stand for another term. She reportedly has 100 of the 168 RNC votes she needs, and is working the phones to round up the rest.
It is very strange that she's even a candidate for reelection, much less that she has a chance to win. The Republicans have had three bad elections in a row, and normally one or two of those is fatal to a party chair, much less three. But the anti-RRM faction, which definitely exists, doesn't have a candidate. And as we point out often, including in the previous item, you can't beat someone with no one. There is talk of trying to recruit Lee Zeldin after his impressive showing in New York, but it is not clear if he is interested.
If McDaniel does win reelection and then finish her term, she'll be the second-longest-serving chair in Republican Party history. Actually, she'll knock her predecessor, Reince Priebus, down to the third slot on the list. Clearly, the modern Republican Party doesn't like to change horses very often. The only longer-serving RNC chair than Priebus is the first one, Edwin Morgan, who led the party from 1856 to 1864. Even more impressive, he was also a Union general during his last 2 years as chair. The Republicans of Morgan's era had not yet figured out that you can totally get out of military service if you can just find a doctor who will say you have bone spurs in your ankle. (Z)
Are You Certain You Want to Announce Today, Donald?
Well, today is theoretically the big day for notable bone-spur sufferer Donald Trump. Last week, he strongly implied that he was going to announce a third presidential bid today. He re-teased it again yesterday, posting a message to his social media platform: "Hopefully, tomorrow will turn out to be one of the most important days in the history of our Country!" And the word from his camp is that all systems are go, and that the announcement will be made at Mar-a-Lago at 9:00 p.m. ET. They did not make clear if the announcement will be made from the room where nuclear secrets are kept.
A sizable portion of the Republican establishment doesn't want Trump to run again at all. An even more sizable portion wants him to wait until after the Georgia runoff. But when you tell your adoring fans that November 15 is the day, forgetting about (or maybe never being aware of) the possibility that the elections will stretch into December, you've kind of spray-tanned yourself into a corner.
Trump, of course, does not care about what's best for the Republican Party. However, he does care about being embarrassed. And on that basis, he really ought to think twice about declaring today. The anti-tax Club for Growth (CfG) was, for several years, the Club for Trump. Now, however, it is definitely the Club for Ron. And yesterday, the CfG released a couple of polls they recently paid for. The numbers are... grim for The Donald.
The two polls are of Republican voters in Iowa and New Hampshire. Barring a change, those are, of course, the first two states to cast ballots in the presidential nomination process. In Iowa, in a head-to-head matchup, Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) leads Trump 48% to 37%. And in New Hampshire, it's even worse, with the Governor up 52% to 37%. The staff mathematician is busy preparing for Have a Party with Your Bear Day, which is tomorrow, of course, but he was nonetheless able to advise us that 52-37 is a 15-point lead for DeSantis. Ouch.
And therein lies the rub. The various polling houses don't exactly have a lot to do right now, especially since they can only poll Georgia so many times. And so, when and if Trump declares, every pollster and their sister is going to have an excuse to conduct a plethora of Trump vs. DeSantis polls. Assuming CfG's pollster (WPAI Intelligence) isn't cooking the books, and the former president really has fallen that far behind the Governor, then that means humiliations galore, possibly on a daily basis.
And then there are the other downsides for Trump. Campaign finance laws will kick in once he's declared, meaning that the grift gets much trickier to get away with. Plus, the RNC will cut him off and stop paying his legal bills. That's reportedly seven figures a month right there.
And Trump would be accepting all of these consequences for... what benefit, exactly? Yeah, he'll get a burst of attention if he declares today, but it's not likely to last. What he does and what he says become somewhat more newsworthy if he's a bona fide presidential candidate, but they don't become that much more newsworthy. We stopped writing up the vast majority of nutty and/or venal things he said while he was still in the White House; we're certainly not going to jump all over them when he's not a president anymore and the election is still nearly 2 years away. And we think the media in general is on the same page here; his wackiness stopped generating clicks and newsstand sales a long time ago.
Meanwhile, Trump also thinks that declaring for president will make AG Merrick Garland think twice about an indictment. While we agree that, all things being equal, Garland would prefer to indict a regular private citizen than a declared presidential candidate, we really don't think that Trump's announcing will have much of an effect on the AG's thinking. Maybe if this was March 2024, but it's not. And the Department of Justice can hardly allow the message to be sent that if you're going to break the law as a politician, all you have to do is declare a run for president/senator/representative/governor/dogcatcher, and you're bulletproof.
So again, Trump might want to think twice about the pros and cons of declaring today. Of course, when was the last time he ever thought twice about... anything? (Z)
There's One Mystery Solved
A few weeks ago, we wrote an item about megadonors who gave generously during primary season and then slammed their wallets shut during the general election. One of those was Peter Thiel, whose motivations are hard to discern, but who appears to be a few bricks shy of a load. And another was Sam Bankman-Fried, who pledged to donate $1 billion to Democrats this cycle, and then came up about $950 million or so short of that promise.
When Bankman-Fried hit the brakes, he explained that the $1 billion promise was just "a dumb quote." That did not sound like an especially good explanation, and we presumed that the volatility in the crypto market, which is the source of all of his wealth, was the real explanation. Hoo boy, were we right about that, and then some.
In fact, maybe we should have said "which WAS the source of all his wealth." Bankman-Fried founded the crypto exchange FTX, where people can buy and sell imaginary assets like bitcoins. It turned out to be, in effect, a Ponzi scheme. In early 2022, FTX was valued at $32 billion and Bankman-Fried's personal fortune (which was mostly in shares of FTX) was estimated to be $16 billion. However, it turned out that FTX had assets of around $1 billion and liabilities of around $9 billion. When its clients heard about this, they began withdrawing their money and FTX couldn't cover the withdrawals. It is now bankrupt and Bankman-Fried lost most of his money in the collapse. Most cryptocoins also nosedived. If you had bought one bitcoin just a year ago, you would have paid about $64,000 for it. It is now worth $17,000 and falling.
At best, Bankman-Fried is broke, or nearly so. At worst, he is a criminal. He's reportedly taking a long look at which countries have no extradition treaty with the United States. In any event, the Democrats just lost their second-biggest donor from this cycle. They still have their #1 donor, George Soros, but he is 92. Counting on him indefinitely is not a good long-term strategy.
Meanwhile, we shall see if the Democrats' relationship with Bankman-Fried becomes a scandal. In addition to taking $40 million of his money, several high-profile Democrats were in bed with him, most obviously Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY). On the other hand, several high-profile Republicans were also in bed with him, most obviously Sen. Cynthia Lummis (R-KY). We shall see, but the Republican outrage machine has not generally shown itself to be a model of consistency in terms of holding Democrats and Republicans to the same standards of behavior. Incidentally, Lummis' net worth jumped from $12 million to more than $15 million after she invested heavily in Bitcoin, making her the first U.S. Senator to buy cryptocurrency. Our guess is she'll be back down to $12 million on next year's disclosure forms. (V & Z)
Gallego Goes After Sinema
Are you suspecting that Rep. Ruben Gallego (D-AZ) is going to challenge Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ) in the 2024 primaries, when her seat his up for reelection? Are you perhaps even hoping he'll challenge her, either because you're a Democrat who is exasperated with the Senator, or a Republican who likes to see knock-down, drag-out fights on the other side of the aisle? Well, if so, Gallego gave some pretty good evidence on Sunday that he's gearing up for a primary run against the Senator.
Gallego was on MSNBC (i.e., the network for Democrats), and was asked about the secret(s) of the Democrats' success this year in his home state. Here's his full answer; the whole thing is kinda important:
This year, the reason Democrats won is because we fought together as a party. I was out there campaigning for every Democrat in Arizona. I was personally donating, raising money for them, for our senators, for everyone up and down the ticket. We fought as a team in Arizona, and we won. Sen. Sinema was nowhere to be found—at all
You did not see her at one public event for anybody, and when we have some of these races that are really in the mix right now, she could've been a very good surrogate to help out a lot of our candidates, and she did nothing, because she only cares about herself. She doesn't care about how this would help us take control of the Senate
We'd say his feelings are pretty clear. He's a hardworking, loyal Democrat and she's a self-involved jerk, in his view. One does not normally say such things about a member of one's own party unless one is getting ready to try to take that member down.
That said, Gallego does not reserve his ire for Democrats who stand in between him and the promised land. He's also more than willing to go after Republicans, too. Newly minted loser Kari Lake (see above) is claiming fraud and shenanigans, of course, and says she might refuse to concede. On hearing this, Gallego got back on MSNBC's airwaves to share is view that "If you decide not to concede, you're just a loser. So we're not worried about you."
In short, it's almost 2 years until the next election and Arizona is shaping up to be a barnburner yet again. (Z)
Reports from the Front Lines, Part II
Last week, we had reports from readers B.J.L. in Ann Arbor, MI, and E.W. in Skaneateles, NY, about their decision to serve as poll workers, and their experience training for that service. Both agreed to send in a report about how things went on Election Day, and kindly did so.
We also heard from several other readers who performed this particular civic duty. We think all of these reports are interesting and useful, but we don't want to bury readers in too much verbiage. So, we're going to run half of the reports today and the other half tomorrow. And without further ado:
E.W. in Skaneateles, NY: My stint as a poll worker in central New York was long and tiring, but it was ultimately a very enjoyable and rewarding experience, too. I was assigned to a small town in a rural part of my county (Onondaga) about a 30-minute drive from my home. My polling place served three election districts: one for the village and the other two for the rest of the town. The ballots were all identical except that the village people (yes, that joke got made a million times) got to vote for up to two village trustees... and both of them were unopposed!
As requested, I arrived at my polling place at 5:00 a.m. Fortunately, I got to see the lunar eclipse, which I ordinarily would have slept right through. The other poll workers were two men (both Ds like me) and three women (1 D, 2 Rs). One other worker did not show up, but that was okay because we still had two Ds and two Rs to sign off on everything. Everyone was very nice, and we all shared the common goal of just making sure things went well. The others had all worked before; some had just worked for the primary or early voting this year, but others, such as the polling site manager (PSM), had worked for many years at this exact polling place. Shortly after we got there, a county elections worker came by to check on us and brought snacks. The village supervisor also brought in chili, which was both delicious and much appreciated!
As the voting system specialist, I was in charge of getting the optical scanner up and running. I am now a big fan of Dominion Voting Systems, as the step-by-step instructions for doing that were a breeze to follow. When the hardest part of the setup is moving the arm that holds the computer monitor for an assisted voting session, things are going well!
While I was making sure the scanner was working (i.e., every candidate was reading zero votes) the other workers set up the poll pads to check people in, got out the ballots, posted signs, and set up the privacy screens that were already in the room. The room was normally used for town court but on Election Day it was mostly empty.
Right at 6 a.m., when the polls opened, voters immediately started rolling in, and there was almost never a single minute without at least one voter in the room until around 7:30 p.m., when it dropped off very quickly. The polls closed at 9 p.m., and someone did come in 10 minutes before 9 and got to vote. Overall, the large majority of voters at my site were white; I think I could have counted the number of voters of color on two hands. Early in the day, there were a lot of people in uniforms (nurses, a Walmart greeter, etc.). In the middle of the day, there were a lot of older voters, some in wheelchairs or carrying an oxygen tank or using crutches (God love 'em!), as well as moms and dads with cute kids and babies in tow. I kept thinking to myself that if these folks could vote, why can't more young people get off their duffs and do it, too? Later in the day, a lot of younger blue-collar guys came by (one guy even still had white paint on his hands and hair). The biggest rush was around 5:30 to 6:30 when we had lines out the door. The persistent volume meant that only one of us could really take a break at a time, so I ended up taking two short bathroom breaks and two slightly longer food breaks.
By the end of the night, just over 1,000 people had voted at my polling site! Across 16 hours, the math works out to an average of 1 per minute, but there were times it was way busier than that. The elections workers gave us 450, 600, and 500 ballots for the three districts I mentioned, so we were well-prepared for an even higher turnout. Regardless of whether it was cast or not, every regular ballot, write-in ballot, emergency ballot, spoiled ballot, or affidavit ballot was meticulously accounted for throughout the entire day. When one voter's ballot came out of the machine having not been cast correctly, one of us even ran outside to get her and have her fix it before she left. Take that, Faux "News"!
There were three tasks for us workers: checking people in, giving them their correct ballots, and helping them in case of a scanner error (plus running back the all-important pens and privacy sleeves). We rotated through the tasks so we each did them at least once. My favorite was checking people in on one of the three polling pads. It was fun to try to guess their party ID and humbling when I guessed wrong; the old man in the red cap and flannel was actually a registered Democrat and the blue-haired young woman with all the tattoos was really an Independence Party voter. When a voter came up and told us their name (or just gave us an ID to scan), we could easily see all of their information if they were in the system. We had them verify their address and provide a signature (a few times asking them to try better if it didn't look much like the original). I was pretty forgiving with it because those styluses are unfamiliar to some older voters, but it was pretty funny how much the messy scribble from today matched the same messy scribble from before.
The check-in step was also often where things got tied up. Fortunately, we had three poll pads so one person with an issue would not bog down the whole line. There were all sorts of mundane issues; people who were listed as inactive and were not happy about needing to vote affidavit, a woman who changed her name, someone who we couldn't find right away because Jr. was coming up instead of Sr., etc. Most of the time, these got solved by the PSM, who was using one of the pads. One middle-aged man had registered to vote online at vote.org a few days before the election. That was too late for New York, so, unfortunately, we couldn't help him. The weirdest error that we encountered was a man whose birthdate came up as 1/1/1850; everyone wanted to know his secret to successful aging! His case was easily fixed by a new voter registration form, and he got to vote on the machine.
The task I ended up doing the longest was giving voters their ballots, and it was the one that was potentially most prone to human error. Because we had three districts, we had to verify the four-digit number that the poll pad printed out on a slip of receipt paper and tear out a ballot from the correct district book. Those perforations were hard to tear cleanly, but if you tore a ragged edge the ballot might not scan correctly and you would have to spoil it and make the voter fill in the bubbles again. We also had to write down the ballot stub number on the slip and put it in a little box. Many of the larger precincts have ballot print devices that simplify this step, but our smaller precinct hasn't gotten one yet ("a few years," said the elections worker who kept stopping by!) I was just glad that we didn't have more districts; one of the other workers said that during the primary there were three parties in each district, so they had to juggle nine ballot books.
I spent most of the night giving voters their ballots with one of the Republican workers. She would write the number on the slip for one of the books, and I would do it for the other two, or vice-versa. In the end, we got into a nice routine, and I found myself saying "take a pen, a privacy sleeve, and here is your two-sided ballot" over and over again. I think I even had a dream involving that last night! Although I don't believe that we gave anyone from Town District 2 an identical Town District 3 ballot, I can see how that could happen when things get busy. The important point is that a small bookkeeping error like that might show up as an error on an audit, but it would have absolutely no effect on the election.
Most voters were very nice and just wanted to get out of there quickly. One younger blue-collar guy grumbled when I took a second to give him his ballot and I explained that we were double-checking everything to make sure he got the correct one. He said something to the effect that it was good that we were doing that to make up for the mess two years ago. I could have said so much more in response, but I just smiled and handed him his ballot. Ironically, there was only one violation of the "no electioneering" dictum that we were told about in training; a very old lady being pushed in a wheelchair was wearing a Trump 2020 hat. I didn't yell at her to remove it and the PSM didn't say anything, and I don't think anybody was intimidated or offended, but technically, it was not allowed.
Overall, the experience gave me even more respect for the front-line workers who actually run the nuts and bolts that make our democracy work. Although I'm disappointed that I'll be represented by an ultra-MAGA House member for the next 2 years, I am glad that I could play a small role in the important process that truly makes our country great.
K.T. in Franklin County, OH: I was also a new poll worker. I live in Franklin County, OH, (metro Columbus) and the county board of elections tries to assign workers to locations near their homes. I ended up working at an elementary school five minutes away.
The Board of Elections provides introductory and review training. Workers are expected to work all day on Election Day and, if possible, to help set up equipment the evening before. Election Day is a long day; final preparation begins at 5:30 am, polls open at 6:30, and they do not close until every voter in line at 7:30 pm has voted. And 7:30 is a hard deadline; a potential voter who showed up at 7:31 was turned away. The last voter finished just before 9:00, which is unusually late. Yes, it took her an hour and a half in all, which was common for most of the day. We didn't wrap up until 9:30.
I was a machine judge. My duties included assisting voters with the ballot marking machines and scanners, managing the line, and setting up and taking down signage. There are few things I hate more than getting up early, and my legs and feet were very sore by the end of the day.
We will be paid for our time. I don't know what the final amount will be, but I expect about $200. This is less than $10/hour when all is said and done, but it's really not about the money. The twenty of us at my site had the satisfaction of helping 1,565 of our fellow citizens exercise a fundamental responsibility of citizenship. That is priceless.
K.K. in Pittsburgh, PA: I worked the polls on Election Day in a purplish district in the suburbs north of Pittsburgh. In-person voters were mostly Republican. As the Minority Inspector, I got to take a bunch of paperwork home, including a tape from the scanner indicating the number of votes for each candidate, so I have actual data. In that district, the GOP candidates for the Senate, Congress, and the State Legislature all won the in-person vote by a roughly 3-2 margin (approximately a 70-vote difference out of a total of 362 votes cast), but in the governor's race, Doug Mastriano (R) won over Josh Shapiro (D) by only 4 votes. The total votes cast for governor still added up to 362, so people weren't leaving that line blank. This means there had to be a lot of split-ticket Republican voters who chose Shapiro. I was very relieved to see that even GOP voters could see that Mastriano was unfit for office.
Thanks to all of you for your reports and your public service! (V & Z)
Previous | Next
Back to the main page