Posted on 03/15/2018 7:04:48 AM PDT by Kaslin
Republicans have a chance to learn and grow. The question is whether they will take this opportunity to do that.
I am writing this column on the morning after the special election for Pennsylvania's 8th congressional district, and the race is too close to call. In a district that Donald Trump won by almost 20 percentage points in 2016, too close to call is a surprise to many -- especially to Republicans.
While Democrats will be busy claiming victory, no matter the final result, and will rush to proclaim a blue wave in the fall for the mid-term elections, there is still a lot of political time before the mid-term elections. Losing provides an opportunity for learning -- if it is taken. This week, when tennis great Serena Williams lost to her sister Venus, her response was one worth emulating: "I've grown most not from victories," Serena said, "but setbacks. If winning is God's reward, then losing is how he teaches us." The question is: Will Republicans spend time in reflection and reconsideration -- and learn from this experience?
The lessons: elections are about choice; likability and optimism matter, and voters want a candidate who will work for them.
In our current two-party system, voters often make their choices based on whom they dislike the least. The victors, after winning, often conclude that they earned the votes they received, rather than understanding that voters selected them as the lesser of two evils.
Part of the reason Trump won in November 2016 was because he was the better choice when compared with Hillary Clinton. She was surly, negative and petulant during the race. Her candidacy appeared to be more about her than about the American people.
The Democratic primary was thrown Clinton's way by Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D., Fla., who was the Democratic National Committee chair until it became evident that she was throwing the primary for Clinton. If that had not happened, who knows who would have won the general election? If Trump had run against Joe Biden, the former vice president and everybody's favorite uncle, the outcome could have been different.
Tuesday's special election in Pennsylvania was also a choice between two candidates. On the Republican side, Rick Saccone, an Air Force veteran who played a diplomatic role in North Korea, and served in the Pennsylvania State House. On the Democrat side, former marine and former federal prosecutor Conor Lamb.
Saccone tied himself closely to Trump, while Lamb declared that he would NOT support Nancy Pelosi, D., Calif, for speaker of the House, thereby negating Republican attempts to tie him to Pelosi.
While Saccone appeared determined and dedicated, Lamb came across personable and caring. Lamb ran as a conservative Democrat, who not only renounced Pelosi, but supported Second Amendment rights. During appearances, Lamb voiced optimism.
Saccone's message focused on supporting Trump and his agenda. Lamb communicated that he cared about "the real issues ... that affect your lives."
While Saccone said he would work with Trump, Lamb said, "I'll work for you." Voters want candidates who work for them. Their elected officials are supposed to work for them -- that's their job. And when that work aligns with the work of the president, that's great. But voters are unlikely to vote for a flunky to serve someone else.
The relative reality of political races means that, while competence matters, so does likability. If both candidates are deemed competent, then the one who is more likable will win. The question voters ask is this: do they (the candidates) care about me, or a person like me?
In a Monmouth University poll taken days before the election, the results provided a partial view into the race outcome. "Lamb earns a net positive 53 percent favorable and 33 percent unfavorable rating," versus "Saccone at 47 percent favorable and 43 percent unfavorable." The overall gap in net positive ratings was Lamb 20 percent net positive, versus Saccone 5 percent net positive.
Serena Williams' response to her loss was professional and will result in a positive outcome for her. The question is whether the Republicans will learn their lessons as well. That elections are about relative choice; likability and optimism matter and voters want a candidate who will work for them.
The problem is a matter of running a loser as candidate. Losers lose.
We learned that we can’t pull a Hillary and take winning for granted.
I think she’s recognizing that “all politics is local” and that voters like someone whom they believe connect with them.
This is a special election to replace an elected official for the remainder of term, right? So there will be another election for the same seat this Fall.
So republican turnout was low, right? Who can get excited about a seat that is to be filled for only 8 or so months before another election?
The only lesson is that democrats can win when the republican base stays home, duh.
If I had to bet, I would bet the republican base turns out in November.
Until then, this issue is nothing more than grist for media types to chew on when they have nothing better to do.
1.) This “special election” is meaningless, in that, come November, Pennsylvanians get to do the dance over again.
2.) Assuming that Mr. Lamb has real political aspirations, anyone who believes that he will not tow the Democrat Party line is seriously deluded.
3.) Considering the unconstitutionality of the “redistricting” done by the PA Supreme Court, and the fact that, by such remapping, Mr. Lamb and his contemporaries no longer live in the districts for which they ran or will run, the entirety of this political farce will become moot - the sordid mess will soon end up before the SCOTUS.
That is a good point that is overlooked here. Districts where the incumbent resigns due to scandal almost always flip to the other party at the next election. Having the same party win a seat when the incumbent is forced out of office due to scandal is a very rare exception to the rule.
So, who won?
But they don't want to.
Deny that reality, and voters will fall for many false narratives by candidates like Lamb who are selected "bait" for votes in 2018 and 2010!
They are talking about the perception, not the reality. The perception was that Lamb was a U.S. Marine who served overseas. The reality is that it was a less than two year assignment as a desk jockey in Okinawa which, while technically overseas, might have just as well have been Hawaii in terms that the biggest challenge was getting through the day working indoors when it was more pleasant outdoors.
Special elections are always beset with low turnout, always.
People are busy, any election that is short-term is not going to drive likely voters in droves to the polls.
What this all about is democrat cheerleading. They are using this to give hope to their disgruntled base.
It helps when the “conservative “ democrat candidate is (deliberately ) permitted to lie about what he will support, and who he will oppose.
Well look, it’s not good and it’s depressing seeing all the faggots celebrating.
But the bottom line is a poor candidate lost by an eyelash to a dude in a district that won’t exist in 10 months, file that under “not the hugest deal”. Bad GOP candidates can always find a way to lose in all but the most Republican districts especially when facing slick a-holes who do all they can to fool people into forgetting they are running under the democrat banner.
What’s important now is November, current District 18 has essentially been cut in half by the illegal court ordered redistricting. Lambchop will be running for reelection against Congressman Keith Rothfus is new district 17. And he would have ended up being the the nominee in district 17 even if Saccone had come up on top.
The bad news is new district 17 is only narrowly Republican. The good news is Rothfus is a strong incumbent who beat a sitting rat (Mark Critz) in 2012 so pajama boy has his work cut out for him. A lot of other rats are intersting in running, the best thing that could happen is a progtard beats Lambchop in the primary, the would be a lark.
The other half of current district 18 is new district 14, it’s an open seat and heavily Republican, Trump won it by 30 points (22 irrc was the margin in the current 18th), no dem has a chance there. Loser Saccone will be seeking the GOP nomination there, I hope he doesn’t get it.
Even though Murphy had won reelection, the district is 50,000 D advantage.
Mike Sheppard on twitter has Sheppard’s Law, which says that no one can win a special election if he is of the same party as the person stepping down from a scandal. (See Dan Johnson’s widow losing in KY). Some truth to that.
Ultimately, the question is in states with primaries, would another Lambchop ever get through? Probably not. The national whackadoodles are pushing the party further left. Those candidates cannot win general elections. But if the “conservative Dems” get through primaries, they will be hard to beat just because Trump carried so many D districts. Also there is the historically consistent “party out of power gains seats in off years”.
How long do you think it will take Conor Lamb to EVOLVE on gun control?
D’s might have a registration edge in the district but that doesn’t mean much, it’s been voting Republican for President and Congress both for a while and it hasn’t been close either, Romney and McCain won this district, easily, and Murphy never had a close race. It’s not a seat that should have a close race and it took a perfect storm to lose (apparently, though I doubt we “really” lost) by a whisker.
We saw a lot of “moderate” rats win R seats in 06/08 but I’m not overrly worried about that, and best of luck winning democrat primaries, fellas. Next week’s primary in IL-3 is gonna be a good acid test for moderates.
Saccone was crummy, otherwise this doesn’t happen, irregardless of the democrat candidates appeal or the scandal of the previous incumbent (and curse the loser for quitting like a little pansy and creating this unnecessary situation, as you said these special elections are irritating).
Lambchop (if he wins the nomination) has a tougher opponent for November , but also a more favorable district.
Depends on the specifics of what he's supposed to vote on.
“Bad GOP candidates...”
And there’s the root cause right there. I won’t bother listing the more infamous names.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.