Excellent post. Thanks.
In short, there seems to be a civil war with mixed results, but the good guys have the upper hand.
In the five potential losses, any chance that the challengers were either running on the right or are equally conservative but running on truly local issues?
Whether they are for or against school choice would likely be a good single-issue litmus test, which simplifies things, but overly-simplifying is often a bad thing. Finding a good middle ground between reading the headlines and knowing what one is talking about can be difficult.
Thanks again for your post.
“In the five potential losses, any chance that the challengers were either running on the right or are equally conservative but running on truly local issues?”
I can’t say for sure but it’s doubtful. All 5 of the defeated conservatives had all the right endorsements as far as I can tell, and it would be difficult to outflank them to the good side. It could very well be that voters fall for the throw-the-bums-out “logic” and fail to recognize who is a bum and who is not because they have no clue who these representatives are or how they vote.
Furthermore, there doesn’t seem to be any personal foibles which would explain any specific defeat.
It should be noted that every single incumbent who lost, even the RINOs, are from very safe Republican districts. Unless there is a complete revolt by squishy voters in the general election, the GOP should easily hold every one of these seats. There are very few marginal districts in Idaho, and none of those are involved here.