michigan
michigan hasn't elected a republican senator in a long time but this race might have been closer. el-sayed ran about 5 points behind the governor, who won by a much larger margin. it indicates he was less popular than the governor. concerns about the viability of his candidacy were legitimate, but they were offset by low turnout amongst white republicans. the former congressman justin amash is on record criticizing mike rogers for not being very conservative, and suggesting el-sayed was a more conservative candidate. ads with tucker carlson were contemptible and they didn't swing anybody but they might have contributed to voter suppression. el sayed is highly vulnerable for the next cycle, and i'd like to see him primaried and thrown out of congress asap.
kansas
IF YOU DON'T VOTE FOR ME YOU'RE ALL GOING TO HELL.
danzig? rollins?
mr garrison?
no, it's adam hamilton, the new democratic party senator from kansas! i hope that's his next campaign slogan, and i'd love to see the ads for it.
the democrats ran a more republican candidate and it worked, but it was still more suppression than swing. i suspect the democrats will never get rid of this guy and that he'll be a pain in the ass for years.
texas
the republican candidate was attacked for adultery and the democratic candidate ran as the baby jesus. i didn't imagine that would matter, but i guess i forgot it was texas. it didn't hurt clinton next door in arkansas. the absence of a woman on the ballot also made it easier for hispanic catholics to vote for the democrats. regardless, the factor that flipped the seat in favour of baby j was low turnout for republicans, who chose not to vote for this cirque-de-soleil of a ticket. there was also a nasty storm. he's going to run for governor or something very soon (when his numbers instantly cave) and he'll be replaced by a republican.
ohio
i may have to give sherrod brown a little bit of credit, for handing jon husted his ass to him, and not commenting on it in the process. that can't have helped boost evangelical turnout. this was the only seat i thought might flip and it was maybe the closest.
iowa
i've looked at iowa closely and the results make less sense. ashley hinson should have won iowa, even with everything else going against her. the democrats did not run a strong candidate against her, like they did in kansas, nor did she identify herself as a bad candidate except in the opposite sense. i suspect that hinson misread the electorate and in the process exposed herself as a phony. ashley hinson really doesn't come off as the hard right republican that she ran as, until she decided to backtrack and admit she's not that candidate at all but a bipartisan and a moderate. she undercut her own argument and you can't unsee it when she did, because everything she said instantly becomes cynical and politicking, and it becomes intuitive that she was gaslighting voters and would again. she pretended to be the maga conservative until she decided it wasn't going to work and then swiftly became the democrat in disguise instead and the makeover was jarring in it's suddenness. it just made her look fake to the core. in kansas and texas, the democrats won because they ran more conservative candidates. in iowa, the republicans lost because the candidate they ran wasn't conservative enough. it was again due to low turnout and not to high swings. the democratic senator that was elected is a gross loser and i hope he gets primaried. this seat is highly vulnerable.
maine
i'd like to congratulate maine on electing it's first republican senator since 1997.
south carolina
in some electoral districts, they'll vote for the wife of a deceased politician and that will be ok. not in south carolina. nope. in south carolina, you earn your own keep, or they take you out behind the shed. this is a fluke result and it won't hold up.