The conventional wisdom was that Trump-endorsed candidates were poor choices and would not fare well in the election process.  So convinced were Democrats of this thesis that they actually financed some of these Trump choices. Many suggested that even with the discontent voters have with Democrat policies and the leadership of Joe Biden, such poorly prepared candidates would fail to win key elections.

The first sign that this might not hold was so many doing well in their respective primary races. We admit, though, The Prickly Pear was not too keen on Trump endorsements because we thought it short-circuited the primary process. That process shows how well a candidate can raise money, develop an agenda, deal with the media, and debate opponents.  It also tests their ground game, the ability to reach voters.

Instead, Trump-endorsed candidates got a substantial loyal following instantly, largely by default simply because many Republicans thought Trump has been treated horribly and they were not about to see him humiliated. So, they lined up without delving too deeply into the reasons for the endorsement. If they were loyal to Trump, they would be loyal to whomever he endorsed.

Now it appears that many Trump-endorsed candidates are surging in the last two weeks of the campaign. Maybe he picks talent better than people thought? Some, such as Kari Lake, have turned out to be outstanding campaigners, often running unique campaigns that communicate directly with voters without the intervening bias of the legacy press. As Mount Rainier creates its own weather, Kerri Lake seems able to create her own news cycle.

In short, many have turned out to be better candidates than critics supposed.

Blake Masters had to plow through several significant opponents to win his primary race.

He started his general election tasks somewhat depleted in funds and struggling to unite the Republican Party behind him. That is not a unique problem.  It is common in hard-fought primary election cycles. But it does appear that Senate leader Mitch McConnell was not fond of the Master’s candidacy and denied critical funds at a critical period. We should remember that.

Others like Heritage Action stepped in, but it still left an almost insurmountable task of catching one of the most heavily funded Democrat Senate candidates of all time.

Mark Kelly had no primary opposition and has outraised Masters in cash by an astounding 7:1 ratio. Kelly has spent two years basically raising money and seems to have a lavishly funded social media effort.

But Kelly is not a family man, has been ineffectual on the border issues that are critical to Arizona, and has had uncomfortable ties to Chinese business interests. He is a staunch opponent of gun rights, crime prevention, and school choice. Mark Kelly has supported the Biden Administrations’ radical economic agenda that has punished all Arizonan families with historic inflation. While terrific at raising money, his positions seem ill-suited to Arizona in particular.

Arizona is not as conservative as it once was, but it still leans right of center.

Mark Kelly is positioned well left of center on almost every political and social issue.

A major variable in this election is the position of white college-educated women on abortion on the one hand and the Democrat Party’s attack on the family and womanhood on the other. Most women will accept some restrictions on abortion, as long as it is not criminalized or outlawed altogether. On the other hand, the attack on the very definition of womanhood by radical sexual extremists within the Democratic Party has many alarmed, and for good reason.

Most Moms are parents by definition and don’t like being told they have no business or right to question how their child is educated. They don’t like being called domestic terrorists for doing so.

Many are increasingly uncomfortable with public school curricula that sexualize children, force girls to compete with boys in sports, and erase womanhood by calling them “birthing persons”.

What good has the century-long struggle for women’s rights been, if women are just a social construct that can be unconstructed? As a construct, men simply can assume that role as well by claiming they “feel” like a woman. Take some hormone shots well after puberty and don feminine clothes and you are a woman?

Although not a political event, as a social event the recent behavior of a transgendered man on live British television was disturbing. Singing before a live audience, this “woman” decided to strip naked and play the piano with his/her penis. The audience roared in approval.

I think women sense that something quite awful has been unleashed on society that is not good for them, and certainly not good for their children.

And what woman who has a family is not feeling the pressure of historic inflation, especially soaring energy, food, and housing costs? Even those currently without husbands, would at least like at some time the option to get married and have children and live the American dream. It is kind of hard to support a party that is erasing womanhood itself and pricing the suburban family dream completely out of reach.

In Arizona in particular, many women are of Hispanic origin. They often have more children than the national average – ask any maternity staff. For them, the racism displayed by the Democrats creates problems since many marry Anglo men. Moreover, they are family oriented and culturally conservative,  and this flagrant sponsorship of sexual excesses by Democrats has them deeply disturbed. Their husbands often work in trades that require vehicles and fuel at reasonable costs. Soaring inflation and interest rates are hurting the building trades where many are employed.

In short, if the election is decided by women, it will boil down to balancing the trade-offs. Women have the choice of who they are with and who they marry. They have the choice to use contraception, and likely they will have the choice to abort their baby if they do so before it is developed enough to feel pain or be viable. Not that much will really change. The Democrats wish to paint the picture of Republicans foreclosing on their “choice”, leaving them no choice but to be barefoot and trapped in a kitchen, an archaic and insulting picture of women.

But in reality, the Democrat agenda threatens the very fabric of the family, the definition of womanhood itself, and the economic circumstances that allow for affordable food, fuel, and housing. It is those very things that allow you to raise children under decent circumstances and take them to soccer practice in the first place.

What Blake Masters has going for him is not a huge campaign war chest. What he has going for him is not his Republican label. He is a family man who seems genuinely to understand what families need.

Kelly at one time led Masters among women by 20 percentage points according to Politico, but recent polling data shows it has narrowed to below 10%.

We suspect white and Hispanic ‘soccer moms’ will continue to break for Masters and put him across the line. It likely is not because of Blake Master’s party affiliation. It is more likely because women understand that they domesticate men into family life and commitment and what Democrats offer is sexual chaos, social instability, crime, and poverty. All these are the enemy of Moms and the families they love.

Photo credit: Blake Masters