The legacy media confirms what everyone knew: The Pennsylvania Senate race between Dr. Mehmet Oz, a television personality, and David McCormick (hedge fund CEO and former Undersecretary of the Treasury) will be recounted.
We reported that the race was close on May 17, with McCormick trying to beat Oz. McCormick began to lose ground as more people were counted. He made an antagonistic move, which was reported by our sister site Townhall.
McCormick filed Monday’s lawsuit in an attempt to make Pennsylvania election officials count absentee ballots and mail-in ballots, even if the outer envelope did not bear a date handwritten on it.
This is dangerous territory to tread on, considering the past year-and-a-half. McCormick nevertheless went there.
According to the complaint, Pennsylvania county election boards “refuse” to count ballots if the voter fails to handwrite a date on an envelope, but otherwise comply with all applicable requirements. McCormick also claims that this refusal to count ballots that do not meet Pennsylvania’s requirements “violates the rights to vote under the federal Civil Rights Act as well as the Pennsylvania Constitution.”
McCormick’s play was rejected by the RNC and state GOP, but they allowed the development of Pennsylvania’s electoral rules to continue.
So, here we are.
CNN: After Mehmet Oz, a celebrity heart surgeon, and Dave McCormick, a former hedge fund director, Pennsylvania’s Republican Senate Primary is heading for a recount.
Leigh Chapman, acting secretary of the state of Pennsylvania, made Wednesday’s announcement. She noted that the gap between the candidates was only 902 votes. This is after all counties in Pennsylvania had reported their unofficial results on Tuesday to the state — within the 0.5% threshold for an automatic recount. Chapman reported that Oz had 419,365 votes while McCormick had only 418,463 votes. These totals are not shown on the state’s results page.
Trump’s endorsement of Oz has been controversial. So has his endorsement of Mo Brooks, an Alabama Rep.
Many considered Trump’s retractions fatal, but they ended up giving Brooks’ race new momentum. Brooks was able to keep Katie Britt (former chief of staff to Sen. Richard Shelby) and Mike Durant, from getting to 50 percent. Brooks will face Britt in the runoff election. Britt is calling for a debate prior to the June 21 runoff.
Brooks stated Tuesday night, “My thought was, let’s get at it.” “If you can defend the attack ads that my team has launched against you, I challenge you. You know what? They are lying. I will expose them.”
“And if there are those types of debates, she should bring whatever she likes to be ready for the fight. It’s going to be a fight. There will be no pauses. It will be Muhammad Ali.”
Katie Britt seems to not be open to the idea.
A Wednesday inquiry by the Britt campaign regarding their position on a debate did not receive a response.
Why muddy the waters when so much of Alabama media is carrying Katie Britt’s water and presumptively projecting her victory?
Britt’s victory at Tuesday’s polls may indicate that she doesn’t need to participate in a debate. Although she did not win more than half the votes to avoid the runoff she still received the most votes from 62 of Alabama’s 67 counties. Brooks won Madison County by nearly 2,000 votes, almost 3% more than Britt. Britt was outdistancing Britt by only 34 votes in Limestone County.
Brooks won Britt in a neighboring county by less than 1 percent of the vote. This is Morgan County, where Decatur is located.
Brooks won Shelby County, Birmingham’s metro area, by less than 1 percent and rural Blount County by 141 votes (less than 2%) outside of Birmingham.
Both Senate races can be viewed as indicators of a national trend, as I concluded in Wednesday’s analysis. Although there may be some common electoral patterns, it seems that anything can happen through November. It is not clear that endorsements are important or that candidates who appear to have an edge in a race will win it. It is obvious that voters don’t want to be patronized and pigeonholed. They want to scrutinize the candidates for their own purposes, then make their decisions.
As it should be.