The PA 18th District special election's portent for the GOP and Democrats

[usmbguest5318]

Though GOP apologists will minimize the import of the PA outcome by resorting to the old saw "midterms always result in losses for the POTUS' party; thus we expect some losses." The thing is that line doesn't hold water for districts that have for years voted overwhelmingly for one party or the other. PA's 18th district has been "ruby red" since at least 2014; in that year and in 2016, the GOP candidate for Congress ran unopposed, for crying out loud. Indeed, It was arguably more "red" than Alabama. No, what yesterday's PA election represents is yet another path in an unbroken litany of post-November-2016 elections wherein we witnessed well educated, "ruby red" white suburban voters rebuke Donald Trump and the rhetoric, governance approach and policies of his version of unprincipled Republicanism, aka Trumpsim.

The 18th District consists of what has for years been a "ruby red" agglomeration of Pittsburgh suburbs and rural areas in southwestern PA. In that regard it's like Alabama and other states -- locales one might call "blended" because they have material quantities of Democrats in cities and suburbs, but the exurbs and rural areas are predominantly Republican -- and to each of the recent special election jurisdictions in which Democrats greatly overperformed (win or lose the election) and Republicans grossly underperformed. The respective performance patterns remind us that for midterm and special term elections, to say nothing of elections in which Trump is not on the ballot, of the legitimacy of the aphorism that what matters above all else is the president's approval rating. To wit, as Amy Walters of the Cook Political Report notes:

• PA-18: Trump job approve 49% Saccone (R) - 49%
• GA-06: Trump job approve 50% Handel (R): 52%
• MT and AL: Trump job approve: 50% Gianforte (R): 50%

Democratic wins in VA, AL and presumably PA along with a recurring pattern uncommonly close races in "ruby red" jurisdictions suggests strongly that there are only a handful of means by which the GOP can retain control of both chambers of Congress:

• Trump comports himself sagaciously -- Well, I think we all know that old dog ain't changing his spots.
• Gerrymandering -- I think most folks have a tenuous love-hate frame of mind on this matter, so it's not much of a tenable solution option.
• Shifting leftward -- This certainly is implementable and viable, but such a shift must be sincere. That is, if a Republican politician/candidate adopts a "just right of center," s/he will not invigorate far right voters and will likely therefore lose to their Democratic opponent.
• Move or remain far right -- This option will surely garner the approbation of far right constituents, but it seems, based on recent outcomes, a successful approach only in rural areas. That'll be useful and promising to folks who like to see physical maps covered in red, but to folks who know that people, not parcels, vote, it's of little import.
• Retain whatever be their current ideology and "dump Trump" and Trumpism -- This may work, but, as with a leftward shift in policy stance, it'd have to be sincere, for if it's not in the 2018-2020 period shown to be so, the 2020 election cycle may well result in a Democratic supermajority in both Congressional chambers and install a Democrat in the WH, the latter being quite likely if the Dems field a high quality candidate in 2020. The Democrat's tried to distance themselves from Obama in the wake of O-care, and that most definitely didn't work, for obvious reasons.
  
  Now maybe GOP senators can credibly "dump Trump," but GOP Representatives, having run their "Russia" investigation as they did -- particularly the forbearance of witnesses telling committee members what is and isn't relevant, and non-answering accordingly -- has pretty much destroyed any gilding of "dump Trump" credibility with which they may attempt to decorate themselves. (Those who weren't on the Intel. Cmte. and who yet embrace(-d) the way it was run and ended are in the same boat.)

In light of the above, the GOP's best course of action is to try to abate Dems obtaining a supermajority in 2018. If that happens, Trump is going to find out what it means to be a politically and policy-wise impotent president.


For Democrats, Lamb's apparent victory in PA portends several prudent electoral strategies:

• Don't run on gun rights. If voters in the district in which one runs are keen on their guns, openly support gun rights. Doing so immediately preempts and obviates the value of "they want to take away our guns" rhetoric.
• Talk about money in much the same way Lamb and Bernie Sanders did, that is, by highlighting the reality that under Trump and the GOP, the vast majority of fiscal policy has favored upper income households.
  
  
  
• To underestimate the nature and extent of disdain for Trump and in turn assume that a Democratic candidate cannot win in a given jurisdiction, particularly some "ruby red" ones like PA's 18th district, and in turn withhold material financial support to help a Democratic candidate get his/her message and enthusiasm well distributed among the electorate is to "leave votes on the table," as it were. After all, Lamb received only $2M and a Biden stump speech in support of his candidacy and message distribution. Contrast that with the ~$12M, along with a Presidential rally and stumping by the Vice-President, Ivanka Trump, and Kellyanne Conway that Saccone received.
  
  One may argue that the absence of "big name" Democrats helped Lamb, but with more than triple the average spending on a House campaign being part of what was needed to put Saccone in a competitive position, one cannot credibly say spending a bit more (than did Lamb) to get some additional air time and candidate-led rally events would not make the race outcomes materially less close (materially less, in this context meaning a one or two percentage point lead).
• Charisma matters every bit as much as does character, coherence, clarity and the quality of a candidate's policy positions.

 

[BluesLegend]

Lamb hasn't won yet, and certainly fell short of the liberal medias lies and polls, there's a shocker. Dem's and liberal media again attempting to suppress voter turnout with lies and propaganda. Is there an election Dem's won't try to rig?

 

[Faun]

Lamb hasn't won yet, and certainly fell short of the liberal medias lies and polls, there's a shocker. Dem's and liberal media again attempting to suppress voter turnout with lies and propaganda. Is there an election Dem's won't try to rig?

You forgot about all of the illegal aliens who voted for Lamb.

 

[TNHarley]

Its been red for 4 whole years! Holy shit batman! STOP THE PRESSES!

 

[usmbguest5318]

Lamb hasn't won yet, and certainly fell short of the liberal medias lies and polls, there's a shocker. Dem's and liberal media again attempting to suppress voter turnout with lies and propaganda. Is there an election Dem's won't try to rig?

You forgot about all of the illegal aliens who voted for Lamb.

Touché

 

[usmbguest5318]

Lamb hasn't won yet, and certainly fell short of the liberal medias lies and polls, there's a shocker. Dem's and liberal media again attempting to suppress voter turnout with lies and propaganda. Is there an election Dem's won't try to rig?

You forgot about all of the illegal aliens who voted for Lamb.

I'm a little surprised you dignified that drivel with a response; the member obviously hasn't any idea what the so-called liberal media had to say about the race. Nevermind that what media personalities had to say about the race, as contrasted with what actual Democratic party leaders, strategists, political scientists, and office holders -- liberals who actually matter -- had to say about it, is as irrelevant as what conservative media figures had to say about it. Indeed, what even Conservative party leaders, strategists, political scientists, and office holders had to say about it matters. Media figures are but reporters of events, other people's remarks and trends, not makers of any of them.

 

[whitehall]

It proves that modern democrats can win if they abandon the progressive DNC party platform and run as conservatives. The question remains of course whether modern democrats are lying.

 

[BluesLegend]

Lamb hasn't won yet, and certainly fell short of the liberal medias lies and polls, there's a shocker. Dem's and liberal media again attempting to suppress voter turnout with lies and propaganda. Is there an election Dem's won't try to rig?

You forgot about all of the illegal aliens who voted for Lamb.

I'm a little surprised you dignified that drivel with a response; the member obviously hasn't any idea what the so-called liberal media had to say about the race. Nevermind that what media personalities had to say about the race, as contrasted with what actual Democratic party leaders, strategists, political scientists, and office holders -- liberals who actually matter -- had to say about it, is as irrelevant as what conservative media figures had to say about it. Indeed, what even Conservative party leaders, strategists, political scientists, and office holders had to say about it matters. Media figures are but reporters of events, other people's remarks and trends, not makers of any of them.

Liberals are filthy scum, so are their pals in the liberal media. Nothing more need be said.

 

[Faun]

Lamb hasn't won yet, and certainly fell short of the liberal medias lies and polls, there's a shocker. Dem's and liberal media again attempting to suppress voter turnout with lies and propaganda. Is there an election Dem's won't try to rig?

You forgot about all of the illegal aliens who voted for Lamb.

I'm a little surprised you dignified that drivel with a response; the member obviously hasn't any idea what the so-called liberal media had to say about the race. Nevermind that what media personalities had to say about the race, as contrasted with what actual Democratic party leaders, strategists, political scientists, and office holders -- liberals who actually matter -- had to say about it, is as irrelevant as what conservative media figures had to say about it. Indeed, what even Conservative party leaders, strategists, political scientists, and office holders had to say about it matters. Media figures are but reporters of events, other people's remarks and trends, not makers of any of them.

LOL

If I ignored the drivel in this establishment, I’d end up talking to myself.

On second thought, I’d probably ignore me too.

 

[yiostheoy]

Though GOP apologists will minimize the import of the PA outcome by resorting to the old saw "midterms always result in losses for the POTUS' party; thus we expect some losses." The thing is that line doesn't hold water for districts that have for years voted overwhelmingly for one party or the other. PA's 18th district has been "ruby red" since at least 2014; in that year and in 2016, the GOP candidate for Congress ran unopposed, for crying out loud. Indeed, It was arguably more "red" than Alabama. No, what yesterday's PA election represents is yet another path in an unbroken litany of post-November-2016 elections wherein we witnessed well educated, "ruby red" white suburban voters rebuke Donald Trump and the rhetoric, governance approach and policies of his version of unprincipled Republicanism, aka Trumpsim.

The 18th District consists of what has for years been a "ruby red" agglomeration of Pittsburgh suburbs and rural areas in southwestern PA. In that regard it's like Alabama and other states -- locales one might call "blended" because they have material quantities of Democrats in cities and suburbs, but the exurbs and rural areas are predominantly Republican -- and to each of the recent special election jurisdictions in which Democrats greatly overperformed (win or lose the election) and Republicans grossly underperformed. The respective performance patterns remind us that for midterm and special term elections, to say nothing of elections in which Trump is not on the ballot, of the legitimacy of the aphorism that what matters above all else is the president's approval rating. To wit, as Amy Walters of the Cook Political Report notes:

• PA-18: Trump job approve 49% Saccone (R) - 49%
• GA-06: Trump job approve 50% Handel (R): 52%
• MT and AL: Trump job approve: 50% Gianforte (R): 50%

Democratic wins in VA, AL and presumably PA along with a recurring pattern uncommonly close races in "ruby red" jurisdictions suggests strongly that there are only a handful of means by which the GOP can retain control of both chambers of Congress:

• Trump comports himself sagaciously -- Well, I think we all know that old dog ain't changing his spots.
• Gerrymandering -- I think most folks have a tenuous love-hate frame of mind on this matter, so it's not much of a tenable solution option.
• Shifting leftward -- This certainly is implementable and viable, but such a shift must be sincere. That is, if a Republican politician/candidate adopts a "just right of center," s/he will not invigorate far right voters and will likely therefore lose to their Democratic opponent.
• Move or remain far right -- This option will surely garner the approbation of far right constituents, but it seems, based on recent outcomes, a successful approach only in rural areas. That'll be useful and promising to folks who like to see physical maps covered in red, but to folks who know that people, not parcels, vote, it's of little import.
• Retain whatever be their current ideology and "dump Trump" and Trumpism -- This may work, but, as with a leftward shift in policy stance, it'd have to be sincere, for if it's not in the 2018-2020 period shown to be so, the 2020 election cycle may well result in a Democratic supermajority in both Congressional chambers and install a Democrat in the WH, the latter being quite likely if the Dems field a high quality candidate in 2020. The Democrat's tried to distance themselves from Obama in the wake of O-care, and that most definitely didn't work, for obvious reasons.
  
  Now maybe GOP senators can credibly "dump Trump," but GOP Representatives, having run their "Russia" investigation as they did -- particularly the forbearance of witnesses telling committee members what is and isn't relevant, and non-answering accordingly -- has pretty much destroyed any gilding of "dump Trump" credibility with which they may attempt to decorate themselves. (Those who weren't on the Intel. Cmte. and who yet embrace(-d) the way it was run and ended are in the same boat.)

In light of the above, the GOP's best course of action is to try to abate Dems obtaining a supermajority in 2018. If that happens, Trump is going to find out what it means to be a politically and policy-wise impotent president.


For Democrats, Lamb's apparent victory in PA portends several prudent electoral strategies:

• Don't run on gun rights. If voters in the district in which one runs are keen on their guns, openly support gun rights. Doing so immediately preempts and obviates the value of "they want to take away our guns" rhetoric.
• Talk about money in much the same way Lamb and Bernie Sanders did, that is, by highlighting the reality that under Trump and the GOP, the vast majority of fiscal policy has favored upper income households.
  
  
  
• To underestimate the nature and extent of disdain for Trump and in turn assume that a Democratic candidate cannot win in a given jurisdiction, particularly some "ruby red" ones like PA's 18th district, and in turn withhold material financial support to help a Democratic candidate get his/her message and enthusiasm well distributed among the electorate is to "leave votes on the table," as it were. After all, Lamb received only $2M and a Biden stump speech in support of his candidacy and message distribution. Contrast that with the ~$12M, along with a Presidential rally and stumping by the Vice-President, Ivanka Trump, and Kellyanne Conway that Saccone received.
  
  One may argue that the absence of "big name" Democrats helped Lamb, but with more than triple the average spending on a House campaign being part of what was needed to put Saccone in a competitive position, one cannot credibly say spending a bit more (than did Lamb) to get some additional air time and candidate-led rally events would not make the race outcomes materially less close (materially less, in this context meaning a one or two percentage point lead).
• Charisma matters every bit as much as does character, coherence, clarity and the quality of a candidate's policy positions.

Still too close to call.

 

[JimBowie1958]

It proves that modern democrats can win if they abandon the progressive DNC party platform and run as conservatives. The question remains of course whether modern democrats are lying.

Lamb is a Marine officer, and a solid moderate, a Jim Webb type.

Jim Webb was run out of the Democratic Party two years ago and told he is a Republican so go run in that party, lol.

When Democrats run good people who are pragmatists and moderate they win almost every time.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Lamb hasn't won yet, and certainly fell short of the liberal medias lies and polls, there's a shocker. Dem's and liberal media again attempting to suppress voter turnout with lies and propaganda. Is there an election Dem's won't try to rig?

You forgot about all of the illegal aliens who voted for Lamb.

I'm a little surprised you dignified that drivel with a response; the member obviously hasn't any idea what the so-called liberal media had to say about the race. Nevermind that what media personalities had to say about the race, as contrasted with what actual Democratic party leaders, strategists, political scientists, and office holders -- liberals who actually matter -- had to say about it, is as irrelevant as what conservative media figures had to say about it. Indeed, what even Conservative party leaders, strategists, political scientists, and office holders had to say about it matters. Media figures are but reporters of events, other people's remarks and trends, not makers of any of them.

I'm a little surprised you dignified that drivel with a response; the member obviously hasn't any idea what the so-called liberal media had to say about the race.

I suspect the only media the member consumes is Fox News; that would explain his/her thinking other media outlets asserted anything that Lamb fell short of. The fact of the matter is that for the past week, CNN, MSNBC, and the three major OTA networks have been saying the same thing: Lamb is overperforming in a district in which, being that it's been "ruby red" since 2000, he should not be. None of them are asserting that he's going to win, though some reported that a Monmouth U. poll, prior to Trump's most recent appearance in the district (his second), had Lamb ahead. To wit:

PBS Newshour political commentary (this is the only commentary video I posted here because all the neutral to left news networks are saying the same thing as goes their political analysis/commentary):

​

PBS Newshour mostly news reporting of the race on Monday, March 12, 2018:

​

MSNBC mostly news reporting of the race, March 12, 2018:

​

ABC mostly news reporting of the race, February 2018:

​

Fox and Friends First (4 or 5:00 a.m., not sure which, morning of the race) coverage, March 13, 2018:

​

Some thoughts on this because I don't normally watch Fox at that hour:

• ~2:40 -- Why did Fox point out that Lamb is an Ivy League graduate? I've been watching non-Fox news about the race and the candidates and never heard a single network mention that. That he's an Ivy League graduate is irrelevant, other than as a means of very subtly painting Lamb as an elitist, which, as one who grew up in Mt. Lebanon, PA (as I write this post, there are but seven listed homes for sale in Mt. Lebanon listing at $1M+ and none at $2M or more), he is most certainly not. I wouldn't have this gripe were the reporter to have also noted that Lamb hailed from Mt. Lebanon, but they did not.
• ~3:10-- While talking about Lamb, they show an image of Saccone.
• ~3:50 -- Clip of Saccone talking negatively about unions, "union leaders have put out that misinformation over and over," yet what so-called misinformation he's referring to is anybody's guess.because we aren't shown what Saccone's remark is in response to.
• Those minor points notwithstanding, the news coverage Fox delivered was reasonable, which doesn't surprise me insofar as on the rare occasion that Fox actually does news rather than news commentary and straight-up editorials, Fox, like all the major networks, does a fine job of delivering news.

Later in the broadcast, ~10:45, Fox presented some political analysis from a Rasmussen dude. The salient point, as goes the topic of this thread, is that he said exactly the same things that CNN, ABC, PBS, etc. said in their news commentary:

• Saccone tied himself to Trump's coattails.
• Nobody knows for sure how the race would end.
• If Democrats can win in that district, one can expect they can win anywhere.
• The PA's 18th race is yet another indicator of what to expect in November.

The woman hosting the program -- Is she part of the Fox and Friends chatterbox? She doesn't come across as a "serious" news person -- tried to say something about the race pitting union voters against the working class. What? When did union people stop being working class?

Also, for some reason she saw fit to mention that Trump had given Lamb a nickname. God and she knows what that has to to do with the political implications of the race and its outcome, which was the topic of the segment. Maybe it was just the first insipid remark that came to mind? (Were it during one of those political commentary panel segments, I'd let that remark pass unchided, but the point of the segment was to offer germane expert political analysis, not "peanut-gallery-worthy" rhetoric.)​

 

[usmbguest5318]

Lamb hasn't won yet, and certainly fell short of the liberal medias lies and polls, there's a shocker. Dem's and liberal media again attempting to suppress voter turnout with lies and propaganda. Is there an election Dem's won't try to rig?

You forgot about all of the illegal aliens who voted for Lamb.

I'm a little surprised you dignified that drivel with a response; the member obviously hasn't any idea what the so-called liberal media had to say about the race. Nevermind that what media personalities had to say about the race, as contrasted with what actual Democratic party leaders, strategists, political scientists, and office holders -- liberals who actually matter -- had to say about it, is as irrelevant as what conservative media figures had to say about it. Indeed, what even Conservative party leaders, strategists, political scientists, and office holders had to say about it matters. Media figures are but reporters of events, other people's remarks and trends, not makers of any of them.

LOL

If I ignored the drivel in this establishment, I’d end up talking to myself.

On second thought, I’d probably ignore me too.

If I ignored the drivel in this establishment, I’d end up talking to myself.

On second thought, I’d probably ignore me too.

LOL