Pennsylvania special election for House seat
It’s a squeaker, just as the polls predicted, although so far it seems to be squeaking in Democrat Conor Lamb’s direction. He’s declared victory, although the fat lady hasn’t quite sung yet.
How do we interpret this? It’s certainly not good news for the right, in a district Donald Trump won handily.
I hadn’t followed the race at all closely, but one thing that struck me a couple of days ago when I saw a clip of each candidate speaking briefly (and by “briefly” I really mean briefly; just a sentence or two from each) is that the Democrat Lamb was a much more attractive candidate than Saccone. By “attractive” I’m not speaking of anything physical. I’m talking about demeanor, voice, whatever it is that makes people decide (often within four seconds of being exposed to someone) whether they are drawn to that person or not.
And likeability is very very important in elections.
Apparently, Lamb also ran as a conservative Democrat in what is a rather conservative district. I’m always surprised when that ploy works with voters, because by now they should realize that a vote for Conor Lamb is a vote for Pelosi and for handing the House back to the Democrats in 2018.
Here’s the way it seems to have happened:
[Lamb] struck a decidedly independent tone throughout the campaign, making headlines when he said he would not support House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi as the Democratic leader if a blue wave swept the House in 2018, echoing his support for the Second Amendment, and telling voters he personally doesn’t believe in abortion (though he supports Roe v. Wade as the law of the land).
“He’s got local ties; he’s a local guy,” Tim Waters, the political director for the United Steelworkers Political Action Committee, told Vox. “He’s a young guy with a lot of energy … right down the line on issues that affect workers in this district.”
Lamb’s independent streak has also made it difficult for Republicans to attack him as a politician in step with Pelosi, although they certainly tried. Republicans and conservative groups have mostly been trying to tie Lamb to the Democratic agenda.
But throughout the campaign, there was not a lot of evidence it was sticking.
Pennsylvania is in a state of flux in terms of how its districts are drawn, however. So this district may cease to exist in a while, although that depends on how the courts decide.
If you think the Democrats are crazy now, wait until they control both houses of Congress, God forbid. They will, of course, impeach the President.
That is actually an interesting scenario. With the current crop of RINOs in the Senate I would say the odds are pretty good that they will convict especially with the possible blowout election results in 2018 and 2020 facing them.
Of course, nothing of the President’s agenda will get done. None of his appointments will be confirmed except for weird ones like Chai Feldblum, a homosexual radical, for chair of the EEOC.
I have not wrapped my mind around the implications of the poor showing by the Republicans in these by-elections. To mix some metaphors, the handwriting is on the wall that the four horsemen of the Apocalypse will be riding the land 🙂
Skeptic:
It is highky unlikely that the Senate will be controlled by Democrats as a result of the 2018 elections. So a Democrat-controlled House can impeach but I doubt the Republican Senate would convict. And if they did, Pence (a conservative) would then become president.
It is the Senate that confirms presidential appointments, not the House, so I don’t think that the situation there would be as bad as you predict.
The signs are certainly troubling, though.
Voting for a democrat is voting for the collective. They fashion the chains of their future enslavement. It is in voting to enslave others wherein their sin lies.
“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” Benjamin Franklin
“I’m always surprised when that ploy works with voters, …”
There is no such thing as “voting for the man, not the party”, for you *always* get the man’s party.
I don’t think an individual race like this really tells us anything. If we don’t suffer loses in the midterms, that would be highly unusual.
So, basically, the Democrats are selling a narrative that will be very difficult to disprove. That cuts both ways. If they actually buy what they’re selling, that these races are a referendum on the legitimacy of the GOP, they’re going to be overconfident and underestimate Trump yet again.
Frankly, I don’t buy the referendum theory. I think it’s just a question of turnout. When it really matters, when Trump’s name is on the ballot, Republicans will turnout.
Doesn’t Trump have an 80% approval rating among Republicans? When 2020 comes, and Republicans turnout, I think he’ll do fine, assuming his numbers hold.
Maybe I’m whistling past the graveyard, but I’m optimistic about 2018.
Barring non-linear events in the next seven months, I bet Republicans won’t be wiped out in the mid-term elections, but hold their ground and Trump can continue with his agenda.
I looked up the figures from the crosstabs, 83% of Republicans strongly/somewhat approve of Trump’s job performance. 91% of the people that voted Trump approve of his performance. Only 2% of his voters strongly disapprove. 9% of Clinton voters strongly.somewhat approve of his performance.
For rural voters that number is 56%. Given that data, I’d say try and go for another Electoral College win in 2020. His 2016 vote share among rural voters was something like 62%. So maybe that’s something to be worried about.
Iléon Says:
March 14th, 2018 at 9:11 pm
“I’m always surprised when that ploy works with voters, …”
There is no such thing as “voting for the man, not the party”, for you *always* get the man’s party.
* * *
Unless you vote for John McCain, in which case you often get the other party.
(just using him as an example; there are others in that pool with even worse records as Dems-with-an-R-behind-their-name).
See this for a plausible explanation of Saccone’s abysmal showing. Caveat: I have no idea who writes this blog, but his examples make sense with things I’ve read elsewhere.
http://www.vdare.com/articles/in-pennsylvania-trumps-agenda-is-on-the-lamb
Lamb also, incidentally, spent something like $3 million to win. The average victor in a midterm spends $1.5 million. Saccone spent something like $600k.
Can the Democrats really outspend us by that much in all the seats they try to cherry pick? I have my doubts. They can gloat over their data point all they want. But it certainly cost a pretty penny.
Sadly, some liberal has pointed out that Saccone had around $10 million spent on his campaign when you include outside funds…
Still, I’m not sure how that breaks down. That total includes money spent of Saccone and money spent attacking his opponent.
https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2018/03/a-saccone-vote-cost-twice-as-much/
I’m ready for anything after the 2018 elections.
I’ve never seen a more galvanizing figure than Trump and was against him because I saw what he was – inarticulate and incapable of speaking influentially.
While Pyrrhic victories are happening because Trump has accomplished things the greater cause is not being advanced.
Who might be able to fix this mess? Canadians like Jordan Peterson. I can’t find anyone in the U.S. who is able to move the ball forward with oratory ease.
Individualism and personal responsibility is the solution. Identity politics is the problem mixed with marxism and a complete lack of understanding by today’s young about what is being advanced by post modernists.
Americans gonna vote for another round of traitors. When will people learn.
Well even if you don’t vote for them, they steal elections via the selection process.