There are 119 republicans in the House whose districts are R+11 or lower. PA-18 was R+11
Then again, Georgia’s sixth was R+8 and the democrats lost that one.
Either way, taking back the house is looking more and more likely. Once we get the house then we get investigations and to block Trump’s legislative agenda. However I hope we win the senate too so we can block any new judicial appointments.
… and there are people who would punch you in the mouth for saying that.
The idea of voting for a “lesser of two evils” candidate is not only actively repugnant to them, it’s traitorous. It’s impossible for them to consider.
And an xkcd-style hyphen-shift in honor of his grabbing proclivities.
I’m curious what effect this will have on the Koch’s pennies for the rest of 2018. They don’t strike me as the type to piss money away without owning elected souls at the end of it.
Not all libertarians are right-leaning, that is to say, socially moderate-to-liberal and fiscally conservative. There’s also socially liberal and fiscally moderate-to-conservative people like me that wouldn’t dream of voting for a Republican, even if they weren’t as crazy as they have become lately, simply because they don’t match my attitudes on what I consider most important. Because the Democrats don’t match me well enough to deserve my vote most of the time either, having often gone over the deep end themselves on many issues, I will tend to vote Libertarian for offices they’re running a candidate unless a truly vile Republican (or “Republican” like our president) is running and I consider it more important to not “waste my vote”. In this race, I can see plenty of people wanting to show more support for the Libertarians than to be drawn into two-party politics where the only thing that matter is the optics, because the actual vote the Congressman has isn’t all that relevant.
Every county is different. In mine we fill out paper ballots and insert them into a large metal box in front of poll workers.
Huh. I thought state law mandated the use of machines. I see I was wrong.
From conversation with a PA Republican (sample of one, so take with a ton of salt), he sees this as the party having been caught unprepared to replace Tim Murphy in the current environment and presenting with Saccone a mediocre proposition: the kind you would put forward if, as Mike Murphy said, you expected to be able to elect a box of hammers, while the Dems took the trouble of finding themselves a candidate they would present with the serious intention of winning or at least making a good race of it, upon seeing a potential opening. One has to also think that the circumstances of Tim Murphy’s departure could have demoralized a goodly number of his erstwhile voters who *did *care about values and who may not be feeling all that sanguine any more about rallying behind the Inglorious Misleader.
And yeah, a useful sample (though nothing like that Virginia State House race) of “every vote *does *count” and fodder for discussion of utilitarian voting decisions.
PA was “Gerrymandered to the point of illegality” (to borrow a phrase I heard on TV tonight). Theoretically it should have been near impossible for a R candidate to lose in that district.
Then you consider how many red Congressional districts had a lower margin of victory for Trump in 2016 than this district. And a lot of them will not have an incumbent to defend the seat (like last night’s vote) because a lot of R Congressmen figure this is a good time to hightail it out of DC.
Donald Trump spins this humiliating loss by claiming Lamb won because he ran a pro-Trump campaign all along.
Keep digging Donnie.
Don’t forget that PA is facing a slightly different, court mandated map for this fall, no matter how hard they fight it.
Trump is just repeating what Fox & Friends said earlier in the day. They told him that Conor Lamb ran as a Republican.
They’ll have to graduate and join the real world eventually.
It’s about as real as his fantasy that he’s going to bring back the steel industry, despite the fact that Pittsburgh neither wants nor needs it back.
So very true. The Pittsburgh of my youth was a filthy, polluted cesspool. The turnaround was amazing once the mills shut down. Fuck steel.
Rolling Stone is in partial agreement with Fox & Friends, noting in Why Democrats Should Worry About Conor Lamb’s Victory that “If Lamb made anything clear in his campaign, it’s that he most certainly will vote with Trump on occasion. On guns, for one thing: Lamb opposes a ban on assault weapons, such as the AR-15 he was shown firing in one of his campaign ads. He supports the president’s trade policies, too including the new tariffs. He pooh-poohs single-payer healthcare. He’s as ‘pro-military’ as a person could be. (He is also ‘personally opposed’ to abortion, though he says it should be legal.)”
Wow, Trump amazingly managed to tell the truth, for once. The guy who ran last night did, in fact, say that he was like Trump, and was, in fact, a Republican.
Too bad for Trump that that’s the guy who lost.
So this win by a “Blue Dog Democrat” in a heavily gerrymandered R plus district is of course being trumpeted as a template for other Democrats in the mid-terms … in contrast possibly to both progressive wing candidates and more party establishment ones, but more the former.
How generalizable is this really, both in the context of mid-terms and in context of the choice for the next Democratic presidential candidate?
And if the Democrats get a House majority but that majority is split on major items of policy, what does that portend?
The good thing about being a member of the House of Representatives is that few votes are so close that Lamb’s vote would be crucial. I’ll take a Democrat in any office that I agree with 90% of the time over a Republican that I rarely agree with.
I don’t think it’s particularly useful for the presidential campaign. For individual House campaigns, it’s very useful – recruit and nominate solid and attractive candidates that fit the district (i.e. moderate Democrats for red-leaning districts).