DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus 2018 Pennsylvania Special Election Results

a 5 point lead is a mountain to climb. . . .

The bottom line is that Lamb never went through a primary.. he was hand selected by a committee of democrats specifically because he was very moderate and had a good chance to win the district.. this is not a debatable fact.

If he had to go through a primary, one of two things would have happened, he would have lost because the left wing base would have selected somebody far more radically left.. or he would have had to abandon all of his moderate views to become much more radical himself...

So the committee did what any reasonably intelligent committee would do, they picked a D, obviously because all of the lemming Ds would vote for that person without question... then they picked a moderate hoping to attract more centrists and even moderate republicans..

The only thing this proves is that a small committee like this is far more intelligent than the sum total of either parties base, who hasn't grasped this concept yet in their race for the fringe.

You can't quantify trumps elections by votes? I'm sorry but that makes little sense. Votes are the ultimate quantification of a candidates support. You can try to throw in turnout and excitement and voting against hillary, but the fact remains that out of the options available to a voter (trump,hrc,3rd party,do not vote), those who voted turned out for Trump over HRC by 20 points. That's a shellacking of one candidate over another. We could argue that a there was less voter enthusiasm for saccone over trump, that makes sense. But that is also problematic for the GOP come november, because it means voters may not resonate with trumps message to the party, and leave alot of openings for Democrats.



If all trump could muster in Moon for Saccone was 5 points, that means people are tuning him out in PA-18. Trump told his base to vote for Saccone, so you have to ask yourself why his last minute rally (attended by trump supporters who could vote for Saccone) did not do enough to win the district for Saccone.



I think we're saying the same thing here. I'm arguing that tariffs would be a positive thing for the GOP going into this special election, yet that did not help seal the seat for the GOP.



You aren't addressing my point. Unless you are arguing that PA-18 is not historically predominantly republican. The district that Tim Murphy won twice unopposed? Or maybe your argument is that these numbers are meaningless. That is like arguing that Kirk Cousins won't throw for 4000 yards next year, even though he did it the last two years. Is it possible he will miss 4000 yards? Of course it is. But it will be quite surprising if he doesn't. The only one that seems to be unsurprised that Lamb won... is you. Psephologist's seem to be surprised, and this is what they do for a living.



Nice jab at the end! The only voters who could unseat Nancy Pelosi are eligible voters in their respective districts. Since you do not appear to know what those are, I have provided a helpful wiki link for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_district

Now since Chuck Schumer is a senator, his "district" is actually the entire state of New York. I know it's complicated, but what that means is only NY voters can vote for him. I can't vote for him since I live in Ohio.

Hillary couldn't do it! lol

I am saying you COULDNT quantify it before hand. Just as the polls showed you couldn't. Just as how you couldn't have showed the amount of support Obama received his first run. There are times that candidates are something the "experts" cannot quantify.

Trump may be listed as R but he is not. R's hate trump, D's hate trump. I would argue that trump is his own party.

5 points is 5 points. People just simply don't show up (on either side) for non presidential elections. That holds true either Obama, Trump, or Abe himself.

Sorry, I thought you listed that as a downfall. for turnout on the GOP voters.

I am not saying I am not surprised he won, and I am not saying its not a R dominate area. I am saying the area is shifting, and a centrist D ran and took votes from the far right R. Think about it, if the area wasn't shifting, why would the Dems throw out so much money and support in the first place for it??

That went right over your head, maybe I wasn't clear. I am saying you have a R area and R voters that would vote for ANY candidate that was worth their vote. The left would NEVER vote a moderate republican, no matter what.

I pointed out Nancy and Chuck, because they horrible politicians, whose own base has blasted them - yet they continue to vote for them, simply because they WILL not vote for a R.

Look in the mirror .... I didn't say Liberal anywhere.

He ran as a Democrat - which is what I stated. He won. YOU are the one assuming and acting like to be a democrat means you must be an extreme liberal. What the hell is wrong with a centrist Democrat? I wish there was more centrist Repblicans. Maybe they could - you know - compromise and work together.

You realize it was centrist republicans that just elected Lamb into office right...so theres that little tidbit that makes your comment either foolish or uninformed

You realize that Bernie ran as a Democrat right? He is farther from a Democrat as Trump is. It means nothing what you run as.

I would put lamb as a left leaning centrist.

He is pro 2A
pro life

I never said there was.....?? I stated that is what lamb was, and THAT is why he won, not because he was against trump, but because played to both sides of the aisle and appealed to both sides. I stated myself that I would have voted for Lamb and not been abashed by it.

You completely have NO IDEA what you just read I stated in that post. I SPECIFICALLY stated that he is a centrist democrat, so how is that assuming any democrat is an extreme liberal? I even pointed out the centrist ideals he carries. Dang man, as Diam would say 1+1=0 for some of you guys.

I wish the Democrats would run people like Lamb in every election.

I know California will still run wacko's though.

If you want to go off on my post and talk down to me, you'll get the same back.

This result is a bad result for the Republicans. That was what I wrote and - as I suggested - you are trying to spin the bad result away because the Democrat isn't really a Democrat because he's centrist. . . . My entire point is - it does not matter what type of Democrat he is. Pro coal or Pro Life or Pro what the hell ever .... It is a bad result for a voting precinct that was 20% for Trump.

Add to that - your comment that "You Guys have divided ..." ...... no, I haven't, I didn't. Nor will I. You don't have any idea of where on the spectrum of center to right to left or independent my perspective falls. I don't read the extreme views of the looney Right or the looney Left and think that those views reflect a whole political party or even represent a majority. Anyone can dig up crack pot politicians from either end of the spectrum - they do that all the time on the networks, I call it contrived controversy. Seems like you want to lump me and everyone that isn't expressing your view as "you guys" ... which is exactly what you accused me of, hence 'look in the mirror'.

As you correctly pointed out - it was smart for them to have a centrist candidate. No doubt. I you educated me on how and why the committee did what they did. But that doesn't take away from what a bad result for Trump this was.

The guy ran on a lot of Republicans ideas. He said he doesn't like Nancy Pelosi but after she gets ahold of him he will turn into just another lefty unless he doesn't care about being on any important comities.

I also think the Russians might have gotten involved in this election. I demand a special investigation. It should last a couple of years and cost millions of dollars.

This is from a local poll just (2) months ago. The republican had a 12 point lead

A couple things worth pointing out:
•Numbers are 46%-34%-20% Saccone-Lamb-Undecided.
•Respondents voted in 2016 for Trump at 54%, Clinton at 34%, Other at 7%, Didn't Vote at 5%.
•Respondents are favorable on Trump at 54% to 39%.

One interesting point is that Saccone runs behind Trump voters by 8%, whereas Lamb has the same support as the number of Clinton voters. It's possible to read into this that there is an enthusiasm gap between Democrats and Republicans.

Ahh, ok. I think we were just talking about different things here. I only brought up the results to show the end results, so quantifying after the fact. I agree that for anyone to be an upset there has to be an element of surprise that people don't see (at least at first).



Except points means percentage, not raw numbers. Whether we're talking 950 Saccone / 1000 Lamb or 475 Saccone to 500 Lamb, it's still 5 points. I agree that people don't show up for off year elections, which is why I usually absentee ballot those years



Seeing the difference in this election vs 2016, I'd definitely agree with the shift assessment. And the shift is probably more from ind voters than party line voters.



I've voted republican plenty of times and I am definitely progressive liberal on the social issues, and on some fiscal ones. I probably won't vote GOP for the foreseeable future, but I look at all candidates evenly and not really on party lines. ESPECIALLY at the local level where things like property taxes come into play. Now sure, I am one person, but you seem to be painting everyone on the left as those who just party line vote. I don't agree with that assessment.

The real reason Saccone lost btw is because he had a mustache

I am part of KDKA the local facebook - as well as on their site. The comments are usually "never vote for a republican blah blah blah" "racist bigots pedophiles sexual abusers".

I am saying that the vast majority of Dems vote dems 100% of the time, this election shows that Rep will vote either party. This election, Obama, Bill Clinton, are all proof of that. I wonder how many Dems voted for Bush?

And FYI, that's WAS NOT a mustache.

Trump Claims Credit For Shock Dem Win In Pennsylvania

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-responds-dem-strength-pennsylvania-025234452.html

like the pathetic post im seeing from trump supporters, trump is trying to spin this as a win for him. sad, very sad.

That's how it works. If a GOP candidate is running behind in the polls they claim polls are wrong and you can't pay attention to polls.

When one of them loses, they try to make a point using the same polls they claimed didn't mean anything. You gotta love it!

Thanks swish, your own article proved what we have been saying. . . .

You mean that since Trump was elected people are starting to turn their backs on Republican candidates?

You can easily go through the thread and read my analysis on the topic, im sure you wont, you will just try to make more snide condescending remarks, like you always do.

I was more looking at the results from the voters than your opinion. Trump won the district yo over 20 points and now they elected a Democrat two years later. Doesn't see like anything that needs analyzed.

So did they ever decide which Republican won?
The Democrat or the Republican one?

Conor Lamb is a guy I can stand behind 100% thus far..

He's a smart young man who, less than a week ago, Trump called "lamb the sham" in his typical mean spirited manner.

So, he wins and suddenly, Hey, he acts more like a republican than a democrat.. Talk about spin. Geez

Do you really not see though the BS that Trump and Ryan are spitting out?

do you really think that's one sided and not just political points?

I certainly remember democrats on this board cheering when "we almost one" special elections last year. Its how politics work, its called spin. I take it with a grain of salt, usually the type that comes form liberal tears.

Shhhhhh! Don't wake up the sheeple before election day.

except it didn't.

look at his record. i posted it before but you ignored it.

supports tougher background checks
did not support the tax cuts
supports the ACA and wants to fix it like we should've been doing.
supports abortion rights regardless of his own personal opinion.

^^^^ that right there is typical liberal stances.

the only distancing he did was from pelosi, which isn't even that much of an issue, cause who really cares?

who did trump campaign for?

who won?

its hilarious watching you trying to spin this as some sort of victory for trump. keep trying, while i keep laughing at you.

where did I say it was a victory for trump? please quote that.

you might want to be careful, your reaching so hard you might end up with another kid!

The liberals won. Get used to it.

who did trump campaign for?

who won?

LOL Just shows to go ya. As the percentage of registered legal voters increase and show up at the polls the GOP percentage of wins will dwindle respectfully. The GOP's best bet moving forward would be to restrict voter access and gerrymandering districts into jig saw puzzles ....oh wait they already do that.

You apparently never got the memo...

Liberals are Losers!

We’re glad you’re enjoying The Washington Post. You’re almost out of free articles for this month. Already a subscriber? Sign in

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-...m=.75514fab66be


Say it with me, Donald Trump and Paul Ryan: Conor Lamb did not run as a conservative

by Amber Phillips


March 15 at 9:47 AM Email the author

From 'Pelosi liberal' to 'conservative': GOP switches tune on Conor Lamb

Democrat Conor Lamb was attacked as a "Pelosi liberal," but after his lead in Pennsylvania's 18th District, Republicans are calling him "conservative." (Jenny Starrs/The Washington Post)

To stamp out the panic of possibly losing a congressional district deep in Trump country, Republican leaders have come up with a curious explanation for Tuesday's special election in Pennsylvania, which is still too close to call: Democrat Conor Lamb ran as a Republican, and that's why he might win.

Lamb ran as a “conservative,” House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) said Wednesday.

President Trump went even further later that day: “The young man last night that ran, he said, ‘Oh, I’m like Trump. Second Amendment, everything. I love the tax cuts, everything.’ He ran on that basis,” Trump said Wednesday night at a private fundraiser. “He ran on a campaign that said very nice things about me. I said, ‘Is he a Republican? He sounds like a Republican to me.’ ”

Except, a few things are wrong with the reasoning of both men:

1. Lamb didn’t run as a Republican, as a conservative, or as a Trumpian candidate.

Lamb absolutely ran as a conservative Democrat, but that is far from being an actual conservative. To wit:
•Lamb wants to keep the Affordable Care Act in place. His opponent, Rick Saccone, wants it repealed.
•Lamb blasted the GOP tax plan as “giveaway” to the rich. His opponent supports the plan.
•Lamb said that he personally opposes abortion but that he doesn't think the right to have one should be taken away. His opponent flatly opposes abortion rights.
•Lamb wants to strengthen background checks for gun sales, although he doesn't think there should be new restrictions on guns.
•Lamb supports Trump's tariffs on steel and aluminum, even though GOP leaders including Ryan oppose them.

Not to, like, preach the difference in ideology between Democrats and Republicans, but I guess we need to go there: Lamb is not a conservative. When he's in Congress, he will almost certainly be a vote against Republican priorities.


The only place where Lamb significantly broke with Democratic orthodoxy was on who should lead his party. He said he wouldn't vote for House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to be speaker. That ended up being smart politics, because Lamb was able to neutralize attacks from Republicans that he is a “Pelosi liberal.” And it's not as though Lamb is the only Democratic candidate to do that. After the 2016 election, 63 House Democrats voted to oust Pelosi — her most serious leadership challenge yet.

After the Pennsylvania election, Politico surveyed Democratic lawmakers and hopefuls facing competitive races this November and found that about half a dozen are considering disavowing Pelosi, too.

As for Trump's laughable positing that Lamb tried to be more like him, that's just not supported by the details of the campaign. Lamb is a disciplined Marine veteran who stuck to the script and was as far from a freewheeling Trumpian character as one can be. Let's charitably leave the possibility that Trump was confusing Lamb with Saccone, who once said he was “Trump before Trump was Trump.”


And now for our second point: Let's say, for the sake of argument, that Lamb did run on Republican policies. That explanation still doesn’t explain why the Republican lost. All other things being equal, wouldn’t a Republican running in a Republican district do better than a Democrat allegedly pretending to be a Republican? If Democrats can beat Republicans at their own game, well then, Republicans still should have a lot to worry about.

It's pretty clear why Trump and Ryan would want to create an alternate reality that Lamb ran as a Republican or a Trumpian. Trump won the district in 2016, as I'm sure you've heard by now, by 20 points. The fact that Lamb even came close to winning it means he did it with the support of a sizable chunk of those very same Trump voters. And the fact Lamb ran as a Democrat (albeit a conservative one) means those Trump voters defected to the other side, a little more than a year into Trump's presidency.

That's a terrifying thought for Republicans. There are 119 congressional districts — 119! — that on paper are more competitive for Democrats than the one in Pennsylvania on Tuesday. That doesn't mean all of those are suddenly competitive, but Democrats don't need for all of them to be. They only need to net 24 seats in November to take back the House majority for the first time in eight years. And there are 23 seats Republicans hold now in districts Hillary Clinton won, not Trump.

In other words, Pennsylvania underscored that the Republicans' House majority is imperiled. That's a reality that at least two of the party's leaders don't seem to want to accept.

again, what does that have to do with anything. I never said lamb didn't win, bro you are lost.

Unfortunately it actually goes against what almost all of the far right folks on here have been saying...

What it proves is that you can win by moving toward the middle.. so you would praise a dem who moves closer to the center to attract more independent and centrist republicans.. but if a republican moves closer to the center to do the same thing, many on the right would call that person a rino, a sell-out, and fight like hell to get them defeated by a much more extreme far right candidate...

that happens absolutely, but don't act like it doesn't happen on the other side. See Bernie Bros refusing to vote for anyone BUT BERNIE.

And there are CORE VALUES that republicans have that they wont budge on, when someone goes against the CORE values, then they get the RHINO label.

There are many things I disagree with on the right, but the CORE values I do not.

Swish and I were talking about this the other day.

I told him the dems need to run candidates that endorse medicare for all, break up the donor class, and run candidates that refuse to take money from the upper class. We'd be lucky to get one of those three to actually happen.

It's easy for those of us living in ideal world (either in ideally right or ideally left) to be for these ideas. It remains our responsibility to convince others, let our pride go down a little, and find a way to get people on our side.

It seems that's what happened in PA.

I prefer the Conservative, Right of Center politicians who stand for family values, fiscal responsibility, anti abortion etc... And that is how I vote.

If a Republican falls away from these values, he is a RINO.

If a Democrat moves towards these values and achieves Moderate status it makes me happy because it is those left of center Democrats who really scare me.

The Liberal/Progressives have made a mess of our schools and our society. They teach an agenda instead of Reading, writing and Arithmetic.

My biggest Core things I want in a candidate:

1. is supportive of the armed services and police
2. Is for the second amendment
3. Is for enforcing our laws and the rule of law
4. Is for standing up for what he believes is right (even if I disagree on the topic)

other than those three things, I will hear just about any other argument on an issue. If you are against things, you will not get my vote matter what. I learned my lesson when I voted for Obama, that no matter else a person is pushing, to me these are the three most important things.

As is pertains to this candidate Mr. Lamb, he was for all of the above, as a former marine, he "stated" all these things, so I would have opened my ear and considered him for my vote (if I still lived in the district).

First of all , it it RINO Republican In Name Only, not a big animal with a horn, or a RHINO

See heres the thing, I believe in the CORE VALUES too , but very few in The Republican Party pay any attention to them anymore . If you want the core value of The Republican Party, they reside with us that have went over to The Libertarian Party. I dont know what those crazy people have done with my party.

The core values of the Republican party seem to be greed and douchebaggery in Trump's America.

yes, I was just trying to have a little more tact ;]