Democrat Ruben Gallego has clearly undershot his mark, coming out ahead of Vice President Kamala Harris, in a comparison of performance against four significant Senate contenders from the presidential swing states. This comes as no surprise given Harris’ dwindling popularity ratings. In some peculiar turn of events, Gallego has oddly managed to appeal more to the Arizona voters, a circumstance that seems to reflect more on Republican Kari Lake’s lackluster performance among her party members.
Gallego counts five terms in Congress and drew about 5.6% more votes than Harris in Arizona, as per the unofficial returns up until this past Friday. But let’s remember, the comparison here is to Harris – it’s hardly a towering achievement to exceed her support base. Nonetheless, it’s worth noting that this margin didn’t manifest itself in Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, where Democratic Senate candidates were merely able to attain votes almost equal to those of Harris.
In a slight twist, Lake’s meager appeal among Republican voters contributed in part to Gallego’s enhanced appeal. Lake, staggeringly, only managed to pull in 90.4% of the vote share won by President-elect Donald Trump. This, evidently, isn’t indicative of a strong Republican candidate, demonstrating once again the Democrats’ unjustified confidence when facing underwhelming opposition.
Interestingly, only Nevada’s Sam Brown came close to Lake in terms of gathering votes among the four aforementioned states. However, do not be fooled into attributing Gallego’s questionable superiority solely to Lake’s lackluster appeal. Another important aspect should also be considered, apparently disadvantaging Republicans in other states.
Third-party alternatives seemed to have complicated matters for Republicans in the other states, but this issue was absent in Arizona. The only other name that managed to make it to the ballot in Arizona was Green Party’s Eduardo Quintana. But his appeal, as of past Friday, barely exceeded 2% of the customer votes.
In Pennsylvania, the Libertarian Senate candidate managed to attract at least 88,000 votes, approximately 1.3%. While Libertarians generally siphon votes from a base that would typically lean Republican, the same as the Green Party does with Democrats, Arizona was disqualified from this disadvantage.
The Constitution Party, another group that draws from the GOP base, saw their Senate candidate in Pennsylvania gather at least 23,000 votes. However, it barely made a dent, as Dave McCormick came out in the lead, surpassing incumbent U.S. Sen. Bob Casey Jr.
In Michigan, U.S. Rep. Elissa Slotkin barely scraped a victory over former U.S. Rep. Mike Rogers. The race was complicated further with Libertarian and U.S. Taxpayers parties pulling a combined 98,000 votes in Michigan’s Senate race. This once again demonstrates the scenario Republicans face in the state.
Wisconsin’s scenario wasn’t any better. U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin only narrowly escaped defeat at the hands of Republican Eric Hovde, with a meager 29,000 vote lead. Nevada, however, introduced an entirely new variable in its race.
Uniquely, Nevada presents a ‘none of these candidates’ option that captured almost 41,000 votes in the state’s Senate race. This option, combined with the presence of a Libertarian and an Independent American Party candidate, complicated matters for the Republican candidate, further diluting the chances of a clear majority win.
Overall, these extra nominees managed to siphon off around 80,000 votes in Nevada – a number that could have more likely tilted towards the GOP rather than the Democrats. Despite these losses however, incumbent U.S. Sen. Jacky Rosen barely maintained a lead over Republican Sam Brown, a meager 18,000 votes difference at last count on Friday.
Reading between the lines of these election outcomes, it’s evident that the Democrats’ victories were more a matter of retaining status quo and profiting from opposition’s underperformance, than representing a shift in public opinion. Considering that these results were achieved predominantly due to the lack of strength on the Republican candidates’ side, the Democrats’ celebration appears rather misplaced.
Furthermore, it becomes blisteringly apparent that the Democrats have gained little ground against the Republicans, despite the GOP’s own struggles. This lack of momentum on the part of Democrats, particularly in the context of a lackluster Republican showing, is enough cause for concern for the Democratic Party.
In conclusion, these election results reveal that any perceived advantage that the Democrats may have is primarily due to the weaknesses of their Republican opponents, rather than any real popularity or policy superiority. This should serve as a wake-up call to not only the Republican candidates, but also to the Democrats, exposing the discrepancy between their perceived popularity and the reality on ground.