Bragg’s Farce and the Path to 2024

We could be witnessing a masterclass in 
subversive campaign strategizing.

by Hicham Tohme for American Greatness

There is little doubt in people’s minds that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s indictment of former President Donald Trump is politically motivated. Polls show that 60 percent of Americans believe it to be the case, including 70 percent of independent voters, and even 30 percent of Democrats. 

Bragg has so far failed to reveal any legal merit to his prosecution, especially since he bumped the charges from misdemeanors to felonies. Incidentally, his tenure as district attorney has been marred with a staggering 22 percent increase in crime, partly due to his decision to downgrade 52 percent of felony charges to misdemeanors.

The double standards employed in this case are clear as day and the public relations repercussions of Bragg’s actions did nothing but favor Trump’s bid for his party’s nomination for the presidential election next year. In the 48 hours following his arraignment in a New York City court, the Trump campaign took in more than $5 million in donations, while the great majority of the Republican Party rallied behind the former president, including some of his prospective competitors in the primaries.

Needless to say, Bragg’s rationale in pursuing such a reckless line of action deserves scrutiny. The general consensus in the media is that he is catering to a more radical segment of New York liberal voters. He hopes to shore up support, especially given his dismal record on the job.

As a campaign strategist, however, I am currently observing a masterclass in subversive campaigning on the part of the Democrats, not very dissimilar in logic to the approach they adopted during the last midterm elections, pulling an upset when they managed to tame the expected “red wave.”

Observers were baffled as to why the Democrats’ campaign talking points veered from vital issues of the day, including the poor state of the economy and the Biden Administration’s humiliating foreign policy choices, in favor of seemingly secondary subjects such as gender politics and abortion rights.

It turned out that some strategists in their campaign were thinking outside the box and figured that they were unable to convince Republicans to switch camps or independents to vote for a party that is clearly mismanaging the country. They could, however, prioritize consolidating their own voters, guaranteeing high voter turnout and commitment, particularly in swing states.

They did so by focusing on priming their constituency as a mechanism of self-defense against the Republican onslaught. Priming is a cognitive process that takes place when people are exposed to consistent value and moral attributes in the media, making them form judgment and assign blame in accordance with the mediated message. An interesting aspect of priming is that it bypasses rational processes and relies on emotive responses, thus making even the most educated vulnerable to its effects, while only ideological bias shields viewers, or in this case, consolidates their worldview and commitment to the cause.

By focusing on issues that were important to their own base, they guaranteed fervent support. Democrat strategists also left the GOP to blunder and lose an election that was practically in their collective pocket. Poor choice of candidates, being incapable of efficiently communicating with the electorate, and a general aversion to some of the party’s choices coalesced to hand the Republicans a bitter wake up call.

This was because all three of these problems centered around one key figure: Donald Trump.

The majority of the candidates he backed lost what were supposed to be guaranteed races, most notably in purple states. In many instances, these individuals had no charisma and, instead of focusing on what should have been the main campaign talking points, decided to spend their time swearing fealty to Trump and publicly supporting his claims to a supposed victory in the 2020 presidential election, an issue which was well in the voters’ rearview mirror.

Naturally, many who were expected to vote red did not like what they were being offered. They saw sycophants, rather than candidates who would stand up for their constituents.

Pennsylvania is the most notable example. Mehmet Oz, a TV personality, completely failed to translate his on-screen charisma and connect to voters, losing the race to John Fetterman who was both physically and mentally incapacitated. Aside from being a poor choice to stand for a Senate seat in Pennsylvania, a state he never lived in a day in his life, Oz’s talking points revolved around blind support for Trump. 

As polls consistently showed him trailing, Oz changed his entire communication strategy the last month prior to Election Day, distancing himself from Trump and focusing more on pressing issues like the economy. It was during that month that Oz’s numbers went up. Fifty-eight percent of voters who made up their minds during that period began to favor him over Fetterman, who received the support of 39 percent of the same category.

It was clear that while Trump maintained solid control over the Republican Party, the general electorate was not favorable to his political name brand. Indeed, the one race in which Republicans performed admirably well was Florida, where Governor Ron DeSantis’s shining star and leadership dwarfed Trump’s role and presence, a point which was not lost on the former president, who immediately began attacking his potential rival.

And this is the exact scenarios  Democrats would have been anxious to avoid at all cost. For all practical purposes, and as things stand, Trump is effectively unelectable, as he continues to alienate large swaths of the American general voting public. His communication style and substance in particular never evolved past the last presidential elections, even after his defeat in the midterms.

Rising Republican stars like DeSantis or even Mike Pompeo, who share Trump’s conservative and nationalist political program—and some might argue were more successful implementing it —have a serious chance to clench their party’s nomination in the upcoming primaries. These candidates, lacking Trump’s personal baggage and character flaws, would be a viable option to the majority of the American public, which is primarily comprised of independent voters. If this were to happen, a decrepit Biden who can barely formulate a coherent sentence, let alone implement policies that benefit Americans, would probably stand very little chance at being reelected in 2024.

Biden’s only chance of a salutary outcome in 2024 would materialize if Trump were to be his rival. If anything, Bragg’s charges seem to be a step in this direction, guaranteeing Trump his party’s nomination, a far cry from where he currently stands.

Indeed, while present polls favor him over DeSantis, the former president is in a very insecure position. The Florida governor has not officially declared his intention to run; his numbers will necessarily soar when this happens. Trump’s Republican detractors have yet to throw their hat behind any of his opponents. Other contenders who currently poll in the single digits could also converge around an alternative to Trump, particularly DeSantis, who is already being presented as the future of the GOP.

In essence, prior to being charged, Trump did not possess a comfortable lead. But, Bragg’s fiasco looks like it might have just secured the former president his party’s nomination before a single primary vote is cast. The ridiculousness of these theatricals, especially given their legal merit, indicates that there might be some insidious purpose at play.

If indeed this is the same out-of-the-box thinking that governed the Democrats’ strategy during the midterms, we could be witnessing a masterclass in subversive campaign strategizing.

Republicans are left with only one plan of action: recognize their limitations, let go of their handicap, and choose a viable candidate who can lead them to victory in 2024. This stems directly from recognizing that any candidate they put forth must appeal to the entire American voting public, and not only the GOP. Luckily, the party does not lack candidates who can carry the torch for the Right.

As for Trump, now should be the time when he decides whether he wants to continue on this path of self-sabotage, or move aside his personal ambition, as he promotes the new vision for the GOP, albeit under different leadership. It will probably still be called Trumpism and have as much impact as Reaganism had in the 1980s. If anything, this is the only way in which he can secure a lasting legacy. Bravado and ego will not do that on their own.

X22, And we Know, and more- April 12

 

The worst part of wanting something: The endless waiting period.

Reversing The Destruction of a Generation

If the world is going mad, don’t accept it.

by Edward Ring for American Greatness

The March 14 issue of New York magazine featured an article with the catchy title, “Tate-Pilled: What a generation of boys have found in Andrew Tate’s extreme male gospel.” For anyone who enjoys the theater of forbidden, poke-the-woke content, much of the article is wildly entertaining. For example, describing Tate’s online fans, the author writes:

 But they stayed for the ostentatious, outrageous masculine display: the machetes and cigars, the diamond watches, the Bugattis and Lamborghinis, the obscene piles of banded cash like a scene out of Scarface.

This is genuinely funny. The nerve of this man, not only to be a man but an exaggerated caricature of a man. Moreover, and unlike, say, Howard Stern back when he was funny, Tate can presumably back up his hyper-male braggadocio, given that he twice became kickboxing champion of the world.

It should surprise no one that Andrew Tate has attracted millions of young male fans. He is the antidote to the politically correct, vapid absurdities they are force fed by every institution in the Western world. A generation of American men are being systematically marginalized, demoralized, demotivated, abused and destroyed. The Tate phenomenon is an extreme reaction to an extreme problem.

In America today, if someone is a white, straight, biological male who “identifies as male,” he is condemned for his ethnicity, his masculinity, his “othering” cisgender normality, his heteronormativity, and for all of these undesirable “oppressor” traits, his privilege. If he’s not white but possesses any of these other so-called toxic traits, he is still a candidate to get on board the Tate train, where he will be welcome.

All of this vitriol directed at “heteronormative cisgender males” is concocted, hostile garbage. It is a lucrative, divisive hustle, peddled by mediocrities, adopted as the new marketing gospel by corporations, and pushed by politicians, the media, and every educational instructor and bureaucrat from kindergarten through graduate school. Anyone who speaks out against it is stigmatized as a Nazi, at the same time as anyone who falls for this garbage is indoctrinated to believe any sort of violence is justified, up to and including murder, if their motivation is to eliminate Nazis.

The point here isn’t to litigate the accusations that have been leveled at Tate and his associates, or to suggest everything he’s done is exemplary. The point is that when young men are disparaged and discriminated against merely because they’re biological men who identify as men, or because they’re white, or heterosexual, or, for that matter, Christian, and when young men are made to think that these qualities—which are objectively not bad, if not actually healthy and good —are things to be scorned and ashamed of, the monologues and admonitions of Andrew Tate begin to make a lot of sense by comparison.

What doesn’t make sense, to put it mildly, is today’s establishment understanding of race and gender. It is a narrative promoting a worldview that is almost a complete inversion of reality. For at least the last 50 years in America, the “lived experience” of white men has been exactly the opposite of what we’re told. They’re not privileged oppressors. As a matter of fact, they’re the targets of blatant discrimination. Thanks to affirmative action, institutionalized in academic admissions and scholarships, faculty appointments, hiring and promotions in corporations and government agencies, marketing campaigns, entertainment awards, SBA loans, and government contracts, white men are sent to the back of the line. The results are unequivocal.

Today, when adjusting for hours worked, consecutive years worked, and the market value of specific educational achievements (for example, “Dr.” Jill Biden does not possess credentials as marketable as someone with a doctorate in organic chemistry), men now make less than women in the United States workforce. You wouldn’t know that to hear the lies, repeated incessantly, that women only make 77 cents for every dollar that men make.

In recent years, male participation in higher education has crashed. In 2021-2022, women accounted for nearly 60 percent of all college students. And while men still outnumber women in technical fields, the woke brigades in recent years are determined to end this obvious evidence of male privilege. Never mind that a man is twice as likely as a woman to get a perfect score on the SAT math test or that, on average, men choose STEM fields more than women.

Choices don’t matter. Merit doesn’t matter.

Everyone Is a Target of Woke Nihilism

When merit doesn’t matter, it is no longer something for which to strive. This harms everyone, not just white males. America’s youth, regardless of sex or ethnicity, are all victims of the woke narrative. The alleged oppressors feel guilt and endure discrimination, the alleged oppressed feel resentment and are taught to perceive discrimination. And all of them, an entire generation, are being destroyed by what is the central plank of woke ideology—hopelessness.

This hopelessness is evident in the irrational sensationalizing of everything negative in America, almost always with complete disregard for the actual evidence. Police are committing “genocide” against blacks. There is  “war on women.” There is an “epidemic” of school shootings. The American nation is inherently racist and sexist, and American history is a blood-soaked abomination. Fascists are on the verge of overthrowing the government. The climate crisis is upon us and the planet is going to become uninhabitable within a decade or two, and we’re all going to die.

This unrelenting narrative of doom and hopelessness is exacerbated by an assortment of imposed lifestyle changes that would destroy a generation of youth even in an otherwise healthy, hope-oriented culture. Many boys today are forced to take prescription tranquilizers if they display spirited behavior that used to indicate someone who would grow up to become a fine and courageous man. They fall prey to the seductive lure of enervating online games, or are pigeonholed into participating in hyper-supervised group activities. They are denied the unstructured time that delivered adversity and uncertainty, conditions that in earlier generations helped turn children into resilient and adaptable adults.

There’s much more. There is the normalization of marijuana, which for millions of young Americans has lowered their IQs and destroyed whatever motivation and drive they might still possess. There is the shameful decline in the quality of public education and  Nearly two decades of ubiquitous, addictive smartphones and social media, with all the damage they do to the metabolism, mental health, and intellectual agility of young people. And as if all that is not enough, we have the ridiculous, disgusting imposition of complicated, half-baked gender ideology, robbing children of the innocent clarity they need in their early developmental years.

It is a small wonder that America’s youth are adrift. Every institution in America has succumbed to compassion run amok, perhaps willfully unaware that effective compassion comes with obligations, and healthy societies must embrace hard but simple truths. Competition builds courage and character. Punishment deters crime. Demanding tolerance for everything breeds intolerance. Enforcing immutable standards is the only equitable way to offer equal opportunity. When collecting benefits is easier than working, people will quit working. It is impossible for all identifiable groups to attain equal outcomes in all things. Every individual endures challenges, anxiety, insecurity, disadvantages, crushing disappointments, and capricious good fortune, regardless of their origins.

And, of course, this brutal truth: we need dangerous good men to protect everyone from dangerous bad men.

Which brings us back to Andrew Tate. In a world where young men are told from the day they were born they are toxic, racist, sexist oppressors, and the only acceptable path for them is to embark on a lifetime of apologizing and going to the back of the line, they will rebel. Becoming a fan of Andrew Tate may be an unhealthy choice, but it’s a predictable reaction to an unhealthy and hostile society.

Rejecting the narrative of doom, division, hedonism, perversion, resentment, intolerance, cowardice and utter madness that defines far too much of American culture today does not, however, require young men, or anyone else for that matter, to go to Andrew Tate’s extremes. America is blessed with tens of thousands of rebel influencers offering messages of sanity and hope—Jordan Peterson, Heather MacDonald, Chris Rufo, Candace Owens, Vivek Ramaswamy, Michael Shellenberger, and the redoubtable Thomas Sowell, to name just a few.

“One of the most cowardly things ordinary people do,” wrote C. S. Lewis in The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, “is to shut their eyes to facts.” Embrace hard but simple truths, reject the lies, and make some noise. If the world is going mad, don’t accept it. Take away the accouterments of madness, one by one. Save your child, save yourself, save America.

When It Comes to Economics, Trust Your Instincts

posted by Sundance at Conservative Treehouse 

A few days after the terror attack of 9-11-01, someone in media asked George W. Bush what Americans can do to help.  Dubya’s response drew instant criticism, because he asked people to go shopping… but in the big picture, President Bush knew what could happen if the economic freeze continued.

When it comes to politics and economic outlooks, trust your instincts.  The economics of the ‘thing’ is always the reason the ‘thing’ exists or does not exist.

When you are looking at economic news, always remind yourself… the people producing the news have a vested interest in maintaining a very specific outlook.  The motive behind what Dubya said in September of 2001, pertains every bit as much today.  Economic outcomes can topple entire governments.

Remember, this current ‘supply-side energy policy driven inflation‘, a purposeful effort to shrink the economy and yet tenuously maintain control, has never happened before.  The people behind the Build Back Better agenda are, in reality, experimenting with a theory. DATA…

(ISM) – The Institute for Supply Management’s PMI contracted for the fifth straight month in March registering 46.3, the lowest level since May 2020. Any reading below 50.0 indicates contraction.  The employment index declined by 2.2 percent to a level of 46.9.

Most of the impediments to manufacturing growth — such as shortages and lockdowns — have subsided, said Tim Fiore, chair of the ISM’s manufacturing survey committee, with the exception of pricing. ISM’s pricing index fell below 50 in March but at 49.2 remains higher than pre-pandemic levels.

“The beginning of the second half may not be the beginning of a recovery,” said Fiore. “Manufactures reduced headcounts because of uncertainty of demand and over-ordering has burned off. Demand isn’t coming back quickly enough to support current headcounts.”

All these trends were prevalent in March, he added, although the PMI has only lost 3 to 4 points since October 2022.

Back in December, ISM panelists anticipated an uptick in demand by the beginning of Q2. “We thought this recovery would be lumpy, but I think this indicates the recovery has been delayed,” Fiore said. “I think we are talking about expansion toward the end of Q3—it’s unlikely we’ll see a lot of activity in the summer.” (read more)

It’s not a recovery now, it will not be a recovery this year.

On a per unit basis, we have been in an economic contraction cycle since mid 2021.  However, because economic outcomes are measured in dollars, the shrinking unit output, and the fewer units being sold at wholesale and retail level, is being hidden.

Inflation has hidden serious drops in unit purchases…. and fewer unit purchases mean lowered production output…. and lowered production output means less production is needed.

(CNBC SURVEY) – Inflation, economic instability and a lack of savings have an increasing number of Americans feeling financially stressed. 

Some 70% of Americans admit to being stressed about their personal finances these days and a majority — 52% — of U.S. adults said their financial stress has increased since before the Covid-19 pandemic began in March 2020, according to a new CNBC Your Money Financial Confidence Survey conducted in partnership with Momentive.

Anxious and uncertain about whether they can get a better handle on their money, some may be intimidated by the prospect of creating a budget or unsure of where to stash their cash to get the highest returns. Others may be wondering how to begin saving for retirement when they’ve gotten off to a late start. 

“People are worried that the money they’ve saved won’t last and are worried they’re going to have to lean more on their credit cards and other sources of debt just to get by,” said Bruce McClary, a senior vice president at the National Foundation for Credit Counseling. (read more) 

If you want to know what’s going on in the larger U.S. economy, just look around you.

Don’t turn on the television and read the newspaper to see what is happening in the U.S. economy for your purchasing or life planning.  Just look around you.

Look at restaurants and bars.  Do you see continued high-volume business or not.

Look at the grocery stores. Do you see continued optimism, or not.

Look at the malls and shopping centers. Do you see foot traffic, or not.

Look at the real estate in your neighborhood – your local view.  Do you see prices going up or going down.

That’s the reality of the economy as it impacts you….. and critically, that’s the reality of the economy nationwide.

When it comes to data and economics, do not let the media created ‘illusion of the thing‘ cloud your ability to see the reality of the thing.

Trust your instincts.

Tim Scott Is Running for President in 2024, and He Really Shouldn't

Bonchie reporting for RedState 

Tim Scott is about to launch a 2024 presidential bid, according to a new report from political insider Cockburn over at The Spectator. The South Carolina Republican has been flirting with the move for months, and an official announcement is now expected sometime in the next week.

Scott will be joining a quickly growing field of lower-tier candidates, all having very little justification for running in the face of the two-man race going on at the top between Donald Trump and Ron DeSantis. Presidential campaigns aren’t just about winning, though, and Scott may have other reasons for what he’s doing.

South Carolina Tim Scott is set to announce his bid for the presidency as soon as this week, Cockburn has heard from three sources.

Scott has been doing the pre-announcement ritual of touring early voting states such as Iowa and New Hampshire — as well as his home state of South Carolina.

Per one of Cockburn’s sources, Scott will announce at an event in South Carolina. No surprises there.

Scott is set to throw his hat in the ring after former president Donald Trump, the Republican front-runner, was indicted by a Manhattan grand jury, and as Florida governor Ron DeSantis, thought to be the party’s top alternative to Trump, falters in the polls. DeSantis himself is also yet to announce.

After 2016, my tolerance for the inane food fight that takes place at the “kid’s table” of candidates is essentially non-existent. If someone is going to run in the Republican presidential primary, I expect them to have shown some level of strength to bolster their argument. Scott hasn’t done that, as he’s consistently polled in the low-single digits, joined by figures like Asa Hutchinson and Chris Christie. Just above that tier are the mid-single-digit candidates such as Nikki Haley and Mike Pence. They shouldn’t be running either, in my opinion.

Really, what is Scott’s path? I don’t dislike him, and for the most part, his politics are fine, but we are talking about a guy who enthusiastically endorsed Lisa Murkowski. He’s also been out of step with the conservative base on several major issues over recent years. What lane is there to capture that would put him into contention? I’d suggest one doesn’t exist.

So is he just running to make himself attractive as a vice presidential selection for someone? That seems probable, though I doubt such an offer would come from Donald Trump. Both the former president and Ron DeSantis would likely gravitate toward picking a woman to put on the ticket anyway.

There is another possibility, though. Namely, Scott received a large $15 million donation to his PAC last year, and he may now see financial opportunity in running. Running for president is lucrative despite the fact that a senator wouldn’t be eligible to draw a salary from their campaign committee. There are many other perks, though, from private jet travel to the possible business relationships made along the way.

Whatever the reasoning, Scott is a long shot. First, he’d need DeSantis to not run. Second, he’d need Trump to implode. Lastly, he’d need the GOP primary electorate to forget it’s 2023. I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with Scott as a person. I’m sure he’s a nice guy, and he seems like a good fit in the US Senate, but he’s not where the majority of the party is at this point. I don’t think he should run.

Here’s Every Major Upcoming Election Republicans Should Already Be Preparing For

Here’s a list of the most significant elections taking place in 2023 that conservatives should begin mobilizing for right now.

Shawn Fleetwood reporting for The Federalist

There’s no sugarcoating the fact last week’s Wisconsin Supreme Court election was a complete disaster for Republicans. In one of the nation’s most hotly-contested battleground states, Republican Daniel Kelly lost to Democrat Janet Protasiewicz by 11 points, meaning Democrats will now control the state’s highest court for the first time in 15 years. With cases regarding abortion, election integrity, and governmental overreach likely to be heard before the court in the coming years, Protasiewicz’s win is devastating for conservatives in the Badger State.

Given the high-stakes nature of the election, one would expect prominent conservatives to be raising the alarm about the race’s local and national implications. Yet, in the weeks leading up to the critically important election, the 2024 GOP presidential primary consumed the attention of leading conservative figures. While Republicans were busy fighting one another about who would make the best candidate to take on President Joe Biden in 2024, Democrats were laser-focused on taking control of Wisconsin’s highest court.

In the months leading up to the April 4 contest, Democrats poured millions into the race to back Protasiewicz’s campaign. According to OpenSecrets, the Democrat justice-elect raised $14 million, including $8.9 from the Wisconsin Democrat Party. Protasiewicz also received millions of dollars in donations from out-of-state figures such as leftist billionaire George Soros ($1 million) and Illinois Democrat Gov. J.B. Pritzker ($1 million).

Kelly, on the other hand, only managed to raise $2.6 million.

Such a massive difference in campaign cash doesn’t even account for the efforts left-wing groups took to mobilize Democrat voters ahead of the April 4 contest. In mid-March, for instance, VoteAmerica — a left-wing nonprofit — announced it was launching a “Wisconsin Campus Voter Turnout” program designed to encourage Wisconsin’s “233,238 students on 24 college and university campuses” to vote in the election. Left-wing political action committees also undertook similar efforts with eligible voters throughout the state.

Kelly’s humiliating defeat should serve as a wake-up call to Republican and conservative figures that forgoing state and local politics in favor of the next national contest is a failing strategy. Instead of hyperventilating over the next presidential primary or midterm, conservatives should be reorienting their focus towards state and local races that can provide citizens with mechanisms to push back against federal overreach.

In order to avoid more electoral disasters like that in Wisconsin, The Federalist has compiled a list of the most significant elections taking place in 2023 that conservatives should begin mobilizing for right now.

Pennsylvania

While the 2022 midterms resulted in Democrats gaining a one-seat majority in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, a series of special elections next month give Republicans an opportunity to take back control of the state’s lower chamber. On May 16, the commonwealth will hold elections to fill vacancies for two state House seats (Districts 108 and 163). If Republicans win both, they’ll take back control of the House.

Later this year, on Nov. 7, the commonwealth will also hold elections for a Pennsylvania Supreme Court seat, a Commonwealth Court seat, and two Superior Court seats. While a Republican victory in the state Supreme Court race wouldn’t give conservatives control of the high court, it would cut into Democrats’ current 4-2 majority. In recent years, the state Supreme Court has ruled on numerous high-profile issues such as election integrity and gerrymandering.

Primaries for Pennsylvania’s judicial elections will be held on May 16.

Mississippi, Kentucky, and Louisiana

The states of Mississippi, Kentucky, and Louisiana each hold elections for governor, attorney general, and other statewide offices this fall.

While Mississippi’s governor seat is occupied by Republican Tate Reeves, Kentucky’s is held by Democrat Andy Beshear, who is seeking reelection. In the 2019 Kentucky gubernatorial race, Beshear barely squeaked out a win against then-GOP Gov. Matt Bevin by roughly 5,100 votes.

In Louisiana, Democrat Gov. John Bel Edwards is term-limited and will not be seeking reelection. With both states overwhelmingly voting for former President Donald Trump during the 2020 election, Kentucky and Louisiana should be easy pick-ups for Republicans.

In addition to statewide executive races, Mississippi and Louisiana will also be holding elections for their respective state legislatures.

The primaries for Kentucky and Mississippi will be held on May 16 and Aug. 8, respectively. Both general elections are on Nov. 7. Louisiana — which uses a majority-vote system — will hold its primary elections on Oct. 14 and a general election on Nov. 18.

In a majority-vote system, all candidates compete in the same primary. If a candidate manages to win the primary outright by receiving more than 50 percent of the vote, then that candidate is declared the winner. If no candidate receives an outright majority, the top two vote-getters advance to the general election.

For example, if a Republican candidate wins more than 50 percent during Louisiana’s Oct. 14 gubernatorial race, he or she would become the next governor. If said Republican doesn’t get more than 50 percent, then that candidate and the next highest vote-getter would advance to the Nov. 18 general election.

Virginia and New Jersey

Both Virginia and New Jersey have elections for their respective state legislatures on Nov. 7.

In Virginia, Republicans are fighting to hold onto their slim majority in the House of Delegates (51-47) and potentially flip the Democrat-controlled Senate (21-18). Following Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin’s victory in the commonwealth’s 2021 gubernatorial race, Senate Democrats have worked to kill Republican-led initiatives tackling numerous issues such as education, energy, and election integrity.

Earlier this year, for instance, Virginia Democrats used their majority in the Senate to block the passage of Sage’s Law, a measure that would have required school officials to notify parents if their child begins to “identify” as something other than their biological sex while at school. The bill was named after a 14-year-old Virginia girl who became a victim of sex trafficking after her school concealed her gender dysphoria from her mother.

While an uphill battle given New Jersey’s blue hue, it’s not impossible for state Republicans to potentially take control of at least one chamber of the state legislature. During the state’s 2021 elections, Republicans picked up six seats in the General Assembly. Current numbers in the General Assembly would require Republicans to pick up six seats to have an outright majority.

New Jersey’s primaries are on June 6, while Virginia’s are on June 20.