This link goes to the “ reply to thread” page. Here’s the correct link
Dale’s point is spot on.
The point is, they voted for someone who never had a snowball’s chance in hell of winning. This time, that practice worked out for progressives, but it’s something for embittered Bernie Bros and Jill Stein voters to consider.
The template, if there is one, should be that all politics are local and that when running a local race, you either run with the local brand of whatever side of the spectrum you represent, or face the consequences of defeat. Democrats can work out their differences on important issues but not if certain factions insist on spreading their own local ideology nationwide.
Sounds pretty much like Rahm Emanuel’s 2006 House takeover. Find electable people because Job One is taking control of the leadership positions. Sitting in a ideologically “pure” minority party gets you nothing. And you’re going to have much better luck compromising with a Democrat who doesn’t agree with you on a topic than you are with Republicans who are salivating to spin a Democratic policy or vote failure.
Fortunately for the GOP, one of their people has figured out the source of the problem:
One lesson both parties can draw from this is the importance of each vote. Every vote counts.
OMG, yes. Although we do not live in the 18th Congressional District, my gf works with people who do. One of her coworkers was not going to vote due to time constraints. My gf worked things out with HR to give the woman three of her unused hours-off-with-pay.
Now able to vote, the woman also encouraged two of her neighbors to join her in voting for Lamb. So, three votes that otherwise would not have been cast.
Tell your girlfriend that her service to the Republic has not gone unnoticed. A grateful nation thanks her.
Lamb winning by less than a 1000 votes, while impressive I suppose, does not necessarily indicate a “blue tsunami” I keep hearing about in November.
I think Dems will take the house, I have always thought they would, you’d have to ignore history otherwise, but I do not think they will take the Senate. I could be wrong of course.
You guys don’t get time off to vote? 
Polls are open a good part of the day in most places. It’s convenient to have time off to vote, but I’ve never found it necessary. Folks with different work schedules may have different experiences.
A thousand vote margin in a competitive state would not be that impressive.
Having won (or possibly a near miss) in a district where things are typically so lopsided that sometimes there is only one candidate candidate is more notable.
“Beating the spread” by, double digits is notable in my book
About the wave, I do worry that Democrats will live up(down?) to the old saying “Dems have the uncanny ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory”
Not typically. Some of us are blessed to live in states where we can vote by mail from home. But traditionally, polls are open from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m (or some variation of that) and people vote before or after work. (or not at all).
With which seats are up the Senate is a hard lift even with a tsunami.
Care to quantify that over in our Official 2018 Midterm Election Contest?
My gf and many of her coworkers work 12 hour shifts routinely.
I like to be among the first to vote. I just turned 60 and voting is one of the few activities where I’m the youngest one present.
I think it’s the 12,000+ votes that came before that 1,000 that have people impressed.
If someone fills a 20’ deep hole they’re trapped in, do you come by at the end and say “Pffft… he just stepped over the 6” lip to get out. Boooooor-ring!" 
PA 18 is a very GOP district. The GOP ran unopposed in 2014 and 2016 because the democrats figured they couldn’t win because in 2012 the dem candidate only got 36% of the vote. The fact that dem turnout was high and GOP turnout was low means that more purple districts are in play. As I mentioned upthread, there are 119 house districts held by republicans that are less GOP leaning than PA-18. If the democrats are competitive in PA-18, then they are competitive in all 119 districts.
This may lead to a wave of GOP retirements rather than facing a losing reelection battle. Maybe a few dozen more GOP house members will announce retirement between now and november. Winning against a newcomer is easier than an incumbent.
Agreed. But one thing that even Nate Silver admits is that it’s something of a guesstimate to gauge how highly correlated the outcomes of different Senate races are with each other. My gut instinct is that the correlation goes up in a ‘wave’ year: if overriding national factors weren’t in play, you wouldn’t have a wave. So I think 538’s 22% figure is low, but should it be 30%? 40%? As Silver says, under perfect correlation, the Dems’ chances would be 50%, but while we may have high correlation, we don’t have perfect correlation.
I had a bit of a personal epiphany when talking this over with my wife a yesterday.
As a diehard democrat; very socially liberal and probably moderate fiscally, I’m 100% okay with the scenario this portends.
If (big if) we end up in a scenario where those 114-119 (depending on who you ask) “districts more red than PA-18” find and elect Democrats, that gives us a house where the Democrats are a >70% majority. However, a lot of them will be Blue Dog democrats, a lot very liberal, a lot in the middle between those two scales.
Which seems perfectly fine to me … because what we’ll actually end up with is a House that can completely ignore anyone who’s an (R) and policy compromises between themselves… rather than intractable Ds vs. intractable Rs, we could maybe end up with a lot of more liberal Ds negotiating, compromising and most of all - actually fricking governing - with more conservative D’s.
Would we end up with very liberal policies? No, we’ll have sound, reasoned policies that could be worked out between adults who actually care about making the country and its people better. Things could get done, something that hasn’t happened in Washington in 24 years.
A dream, I know, but its nice to think about.