A test coming up in March. Cite
Sounds like he’s a Lamb to the slaughter.
Two things…
First, there was a short lived thread on this topic a couple weeks ago. There’s some additional background info there for the truly curious.
Second, there’s a PredictIt market for this. Which party will win the House of Representatives special election in Pennsylvania’s 18th district? When I looked at this market a few weeks ago it was around 3 to 1 against a Dem pick up. Today it’s a very slightly R leaning near even money bet. What changed? As far as I can tell it wasn’t anything in PA. It looks to me like Doug Jones victory in AL moved this market.
If any mods want to merge my thread with that one, I’m good with that. This topic may become more salient in the next month or so.
Thanks.
I looked at both. The other one didn’t get much play, so we’ll leave it be at the moment. Run with this one and we’ll see where we end up.
This is exactly the kind of nightmare candidate that Trump’s Republican party faces, and yes, the challenge is real. It’s no longer a question of whether Democrats can take a district that Trump won; it’s a question of whether a Democrat can take districts that Trump won by 15-20 percent. Increasingly, the answer to that question is, apparently so. I would caution though that it’s still early. It’s still too early into Trump’s term to determine how bad the damage is to the GOP brand. If the economy continues to chug along and especially if Americans get past the tax season without taking a major hit, then perhaps the polls won’t look quite so bad next year. A lot of it depends on what kind of candidates Republicans run. Will they run Steve Bannon-type candidates, or will they be more Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell – still pretty bad on the spectrum but not sexual predators.
Going off on a tangent…
I think that the Democrats may have a secret sauce brewing going forward, one that includes the party retaking the mantle of being the mature, responsible, ethical party. The Republican failings on foreign policy and economics will eventually become too great to ignore. When the house of cards falls can’t be known, but the opportunity is already beginning to take shape. The Democrats have the opportunity to be the party of economic parity and opportunity, and there will be a market for that. They will have the opportunity to be the undisputed party of civil rights. They have the opportunity to be the party of law and order, of political ethics. They don’t need to get into the dirt and fight over abortion - they can’t really shape that debate until they get more political power to fill the judiciary anyway.
Right now the concern - understandably - is just to win districts that are winnable, but in order to build a strong mainstream party that can really bring a large coalition together for the long term, they’ll really need to find ways to bridge the current centrist and harder left divide. What would probably work is for Democrats to stick with being a largely centrist party but one that more broadly accepts and is open to left wing economics. I think the Bernie Sanders wing clearly has a lot of the intellectual energy in the party, but it’s not going to be successful in a lot of districts across the country, and they need to understand that. What Sanders’ coalition needs to do is to start really working with the center of both parties and selling them on how things like Medicare for All, Canadian style program can be implemented and how it can actually have positive economic impact - how it can actually create entrepreneurship once people stop worrying about losing their coverage and so forth. And if at first they can’t get total buy-in, then perhaps something like a public option, which is what Obama originally proposed in 2009.
The 18th is in southwest PA, not an area I know well, but if it’s like northeast PA the conservative voters are dying off leaving behind younger people who see how their parents left them without an economic base. It may not be time yet, but I see PA changing from Democratic Philly and Pittsburgh with Alabama inbetween into a fully Blue state.
In essence you’re talking about the sort of “internal triangulation” which doesn’t merely constitute simple arithmetical compromise but which combines the best elements from each position into an amalgam which is superior to either that I have been calling for since 11-9-16.
Also, it doesn’t matter what the Democrat is running as, what matters is how he can be effectively painted by the opposition.
Midterms are about turning out your people, rather than appealing to the median voter. Special elections like this one, even more so. I hope Lamb isn’t one of those centrists that everybody likes a little bit, but nobody is really excited about. We’ve lost too often with candidates like that, without building up the party at all.
I find it interesting that Saccone says that Congress is no place for on-the-job training but strongly supports Trump. Because, you know, the White House is a good place for otj training in government. :rolleyes:
I am familiar with rural southwestern Pennsylvania. The winner will be whichever candidate can more credibly portray themselves as being anti-abortion. No other issue will matter, barring some horrible scandal hitting one of the candidates.
Guns would also be big, except that I assume that both candidates are pro-gun. Neither of them would have gotten to where they were in that environment if they were anti-gun.
I’m not sure exactly what a Lamb win would mean in this special election. If he wins, that’s nice, but he’s going to need to turn around and run yet again in November. A few months of incumbency won’t really be enough to help. Sure, Democrats may flood this race with donations for the special election, but that level of support just won’t be there in November.
The recent wins at the end of 2017 and closer than normal losses from the earlier have helped with candidate recruitment. In so many house districts, it is hard to recruit a decent candidate if they don’t think there is a real chance of winning. That hasn’t been an issue for the Democrats for 2018. Massive marches are nice, but recruiting candidates that aren’t novelties, poli sci profs, or wingnuts is far more important if they want to take back the House.
OK, I just dug up a map. The district isn’t as rural as I thought: Most of its population seems to come from Pittsburgh suburbs. The rural portions will still vote according to abortion, but I don’t have a good feel for the suburban parts.
It’s a tricky question to answer for that particular district, due to a lack of recent data.
Right now, the generic Congressional polls are showing quite the advantage for the Democrats. They’re ahead, 49.9% to 37.0%. I would personally expect a swing of 7-12 percentage points away from the more recent Congressional runs for the Republican vote. That is to say, a Republican who won by 5% would now lose by 2-10 points. I’d expect an incumbent to run towards the top of the range, and a new combatant to run towards the bottom.
Also, Trump is an historically unpopular president; I’d expect someone who’d tied their campaign to his star to do a point or two worse than someone who hadn’t.
In this particular case, the previous Republican congressman had run unopposed in the previous couple of elections, so there’s no predictive help there.
My gut feeling is that it’s possible, but it’ll be close, and entirely dependent on turnout. If the Democrats continue to come out to vote strongly, and the Republicans continue to avoid the polls, then it’s more likely.
It does have to be noted that before Murphy the 18th district was long represented, 1995 to 2003, by a pro-choice Michael Doyle. Yes redistricting moved him to the the 14th. But still.
For the little it is worth my handicapping is that special elections are all about who is motivated to turn out, as turnout is often even less than midterms. Those wanting to vote against Trump and against those who embrace him are, right now, fairly highly motivated. Those who voted for Trump (and perhaps even more, against HRC), especially the Blue collar voters who went his way, are not so much so.
Saccone has tied himself to Trump’s wagon and was supportive of Roy Moore’s campaign while Lamb, a Marine veteran with deep family ties to the region, who as an assistant U.S. attorney prosecuted a Naval Academy instructor who lied under oath about sexual misconduct involving female service members but more importantly led efforts taking on the opioid epidemic in the region. Lamb’s lack Congressional experience means no votes to use against him. A strong Catholic who is personally against abortion but who accepts it as the law of the land just won’t rally the troops against him.
Ads that kaboom: “Lamb. Too liberal for the 18th!” will not get the traction they need to. His serious about the opioid crisis and tough on crime emphases will play well in the rural sections, as will his military background, and playing up GOP hypocrisy will play well in the suburbs.
I think the Moore election is less salient than the VA one here.
From a recent Pittsburgh Post Gazette
It’s possible that Saccone’s support of the GOP tax bill, with its unpopularity among Blue collar workers and older voters, will hurt him more than anything else.
The ‘meaning’ of a Lamb win would be an additional data point on the size of the nationwide wave likely coming on in November.
As far as this district in November goes, both parties will be spreading their spending over a hundred or so races. Lamb will have less money for November, but so will his challenger.
Those recent wins at the end of 2017 demonstrated candidate recruitment. Lots of first-time candidates won in Virginia two months ago, as few GOP incumbents went unchallenged. This is already the case for the House of Representatives too, and there’s no reason to think that the Dems nationally will field a weaker lineup than the Dems in Virginia did.
Unless a truly massive scandal comes out against Saccone, on the level of the one that displaced the previous officeholder, I don’t think Lamb has a chance. A 10-15 point deficit might be overcome but Trump won this district by 20 points. It will be like Ryan Zinke, Karen Handel and Ron Estes. A win for Republicans, but much closer than it should have been. Trump, and Republican pols will point to to vindicate themselves, but veteran poll watchers will see it as an ill wind for the GOP.
nm
We have a poll. The poll is from Gravis which is a B- pollster with about a one point Republican lean according to 538. So, while not perfect, pretty good and certainly good enough to establish a baseline for this race.
The top line number is Saccone +12 (46-34). Twenty percent undecided leaves the door open for Lamb, but he needs undecideds to break to him 4 to 1 to pull even and that is a pretty tall order.
The poll also asks about a number of social issues that I found interesting because it’s a part of the country I’m not overly familiar with and it gives me some insight.
A couple examples:
Abortion oppose/support 45/38
Marijuana oppose/support 43/50
The abortion question asked whether they support or oppose a ban on abortion in Pennsylvania. 45% oppose the ban, 38% support it.