Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    Republican Wins Iowa’s 2nd District Race by Just Six Votes, Flips Seat

    Republican Wins Iowa’s 2nd District Race by Just Six Votes, Flips Seat

    Marianette Miller-Meeks: “It is the honor of a lifetime to be elected to serve the people of eastern and southern Iowa.”

    https://youtu.be/quIu1WHMQMg
    Listen to this article

    The race for Iowa’s second district came down to a razor thin margin. Republican candidate Marianette Miller-Meeks won by a lead of just six votes. This is a flip, as the seat was previously held by a retiring Democrat.

    This is an excellent reminder of the importance of vote integrity. A handful of votes decided this contest.

    Zachary Oren Smith reports at the Iowa City Press-Citizen:

    End of recount maintains Miller-Meeks lead in Iowa 2nd District U.S. House race; margin just 6 votes

    Republican Mariannette Miller-Meeks remains atop Iowa’s 2nd District congressional race despite a Saturday recount in Clinton County that eroded her already single-digit lead to just six votes.

    The Clinton County tally concluded a recount in the 24-county southeast Iowa district, which extends from Jasper and Marion counties in the Des Moines metro to Davenport, and includes Iowa City and Burlington. The vote will go to a state canvassing board Monday to be certified, which would make Miller-Meeks the official winner.

    In a statement, Hart’s campaign manager, Zach Meunier, did not say whether the campaign will file a legal challenge in the race, the closest House election in the nation. That would trigger a review by a judicial panel and cast continued uncertainty over the outcome.

    “When we began this recount Rita Hart was down by 47 votes,” Meunier said. “As more ballots have been counted, the margin has narrowed dramatically and is now down to a mere 6 votes — making this the closest Congressional race in recent history, and one of the very closest in the last hundred years.

    They don’t get much closer than this.

    Miller-Meeks released this statement:

    Messages of congratulations are already flowing in:

    It’s amazing how well Republican House candidates did in this election, particularly women.

    The pollsters got it so wrong.

    Featured image via YouTube.

    DONATE

    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.

    Comments


    interesting career path:

    ‘Miller-Meeks was born in Herlong, California in 1955.[1] She enlisted in the United States Army at the age of 18 and served for 24 years, including as a nurse, physician, and member of the United States Army Reserve. She retired at the rank of Lieutenant colonel.”


     
     0 
     
     4
    The Friendly Grizzly | November 29, 2020 at 11:30 am

    A woman, with a hyphenated name. I have a less than warm and fuzzy feeling about this…


       
       0 
       
       2
      Eastwood Ravine in reply to The Friendly Grizzly. | November 29, 2020 at 12:40 pm

      I wouldn’t get too bent out of shape over people, women in particular, who have hyphenated surnames. It could be done for many reasons, I see it less of a feminist thing and more of a family thing; many people are extremely proud of their genealogy. They want as many incidences of their family in the record as possible.

      If this were the seat that flipped the House from D to R, and it’s not that far off, I wouldn’t care how many hyphens she used.


       
       0 
       
       1
      amatuerwrangler in reply to The Friendly Grizzly. | November 29, 2020 at 6:11 pm

      Yes, the reasons for the hyphen differ. Besides family name it is for professional licensing reasons. She most likely was a single woman when she entered the Army, as Miller. While in the Army she achieved certifications as nurse and physician, either as Miller, or if she married sometime along the way she became Meeks. The process to get new names on professional licenses can be difficult, so some women retain the name they had when licensed to avoid unpleasant encounters with the bureaucrats.

      This is, of course, strictly conjecture on my part, except about the dealing with the bureaucrats.

    So the Democrats running for the House of Representative did not win EVEN ONE swing seat but Biden won in a landslide!


       
       0 
       
       1
      The Friendly Grizzly in reply to Viator. | November 29, 2020 at 3:49 pm

      You weren’t seriously questioning the results, are you?

      /


       
       0 
       
       5
      Eastwood Ravine in reply to Viator. | November 29, 2020 at 5:03 pm

      There was only one other “winning” presidential candidate that had worse coattails down-ticket. That was Kennedy in 1960. It’s common knowledge that Kennedy-era Democrat party stole that election from Nixon.

      This time we knew within the first 24 hours after the election that the Democrats stole it.


         
         0 
         
         3
        Olinser in reply to Eastwood Ravine. | November 29, 2020 at 9:56 pm

        That’s not even really the same thing, as there was no incumbent.

        Never in the history of United States Presidents, has an incumbent President gained seats in Congress and lost re-election.

        Literally, NEVER. It’s not even close. Losing incumbent Presidents usually lost 30+ House seats when they lost.

        When King Barry The Annointed One was re-elected in 2012, Democrats only picked up 8 seats. When W Bush won in 2004, he only picked up 3 seats. When Clinton won in 1992 they only gained 2 seats.

        When Reagan won in an unambiguous landslide, Republicans picked up 16 seats.

        So far, Republicans under Trump have gained 13 seats. That’s the biggest gain for an incumbent since Reagan.

        But sure, Trump ‘lost’.


           
           0 
           
           1
          Eastwood Ravine in reply to Olinser. | November 30, 2020 at 12:18 am

          That’s a great point, I’m inclined to favor your point that isn’t an exact comparison. But I would also point out, that like George H. W. bush 28 years later, Nixon was essentially running as as a third term for his party in the White House.


         
         0 
         
         2
        Olinser in reply to Eastwood Ravine. | November 29, 2020 at 9:57 pm

        Nixon knew right away.

        But in classic surrender monkey GOPe fashion, he decided that he shouldn’t contest the fraud because it would reflect poorly on the US election system.


           
           0 
           
           2
          Eastwood Ravine in reply to Olinser. | November 30, 2020 at 12:24 am

          In the middle of the Cold War, Nixon may have been right not to contest the election. Nixon was a lot of things, but he was a Cold Warrior.


           
           1 
           
           0
          Milhouse in reply to Olinser. | November 30, 2020 at 2:01 am

          Oh, please. He didn’t contest it because he knew there was just as much Republican fraud in downstate Illinois as there was Democrat fraud in Chicago, and in a contest that would come out.


     
     0 
     
     1
    henrybowman | November 30, 2020 at 12:10 am

    I cannot believe such a flip will stand as long as there is a Democrat with a Xerox machine anywhere in the district.


    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend