Election 2018 Thread (An Adult Finally Has the Gavel)

[LadySkinsFan]

Republicans can try to change the outcome, the big story is that Trumpism lost in that gerrymandered district.

 

Candidates must file for the new PA Congressional districts by March 20th for the midterms. 

 

I expect PA to go blue again.

[PleaseBlitz]

4 hours ago, Elessar78 said:

right, purity tests is why the GOP is where it's at now. 

 

But sorry, what is a "CD"?

 

Congressional district. 

[PleaseBlitz]

4 hours ago, DogofWar1 said:

Yes and No.  While there should bean examination of what plays well, it should be noted Lamb didn't win with the usual voters so much as he fired up the Pittsburgh suburbs.  So certainly, in some truly rural districts you might have to run a true blue dog, but in mixed districts, you can lean on the suburbs a fair amount.

 

Definitely ditch the purity tests but probably the best path is to have multiple candidates in primaries.  Let the one with the best ideas win out.  Candidates will find what works if they face adversity.

 

 

Lamb did both (won the usual voters and fired up the burbs).  He threaded a tight needle (hopefully), and he could not have done that if he subscribed to party orthodoxy such as support of significant gun control measures (beyond background checks) and full-throated support of abortion rights.  So I agree that in some districts you need a true blue dog and some you need full-on progressives and others you need something in the middle.  Which was my point, scrap the purity tests and run folks that match their electorate, no matter what that means or what individual positions they need to take.  

 

I laughed when certain R commentators claimed the Lamb won because he "ran as a Republican."  He took a handful of moderate positions, also campaigned for universal healthcare, against cuts to social security, for medical marijuana, was pro union/anti right to work, and against Trump's tax cuts.  One of his "moderate" positions was that Roe v. Wade is the law of the land - the R position is that it is not and/or should be overturned.  Another of his "moderate" positions was an expansion of background checks - the R position is that can never ever happen.  

[Predicto]

5 hours ago, Burgold said:

Democrats have been the centrist party for years. At least since Bill Clinton. While the Republican party has moved further and further to the right the Democrats have not made a parallel move to the left. Yes, there is a fringe Bernie wing, but it's a small voice unlike the Trump wing which is the heart and soul of the modern Republican movement. 

 

But the right fringe of the GOP still always shows up to vote for the GOP candidate, no matter who they are.

 

The left fringe of the Democratic Party gets all hissy and self-rightous and refuses to vote for the Democratic candidate unless they act like Che Guevara Jr.  

[Burgold]

7 minutes ago, Predicto said:

 

But the right fringe of the GOP still always shows up to vote for the GOP candidate, no matter who they are.

 

The left fringe of the Democratic Party gets all hissy and self-rightous and refuses to vote for the Democratic candidate unless they act like Che Guevara Jr.  

Are saying that "ironically" the Republicans all act like Lambs?

[Larry]

7 minutes ago, Predicto said:

 

But the right fringe of the GOP still always shows up to vote for the GOP candidate, no matter who they are.

 

The left fringe of the Democratic Party gets all hissy and self-rightous and refuses to vote for the Democratic candidate unless they act like Che Guevara Jr.  

 

Pointing out:  

 

You're attempting to paint this as though this makes the right fringe more loyal than the left fringe.  

 

What you're really pointing out is that the R candidate does what the fringe demands, while the D candidate sometimes is moderate despite the fringe.  

 

[Burgold]

18 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

Pointing out:  

 

You're attempting to paint this as though this makes the right fringe more loyal than the left fringe.  

 

What you're really pointing out is that the R candidate does what the fringe demands, while the D candidate sometimes is moderate despite the fringe.  

 

I don't know if that's the case. How many times have we seen the Right continue to vote for the R candidate despite doing nothing or exactly the opposite of what they campaigned on? I think that's even more true with Trump and his promises to "Drain the Swamp" "Replace Obamacare with something better" etc. 

[Predicto]

29 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

Pointing out:  

 

You're attempting to paint this as though this makes the right fringe more loyal than the left fringe.  

 

What you're really pointing out is that the R candidate does what the fringe demands, while the D candidate sometimes is moderate despite the fringe.  

 

 

Both are true, tbh

[PleaseBlitz]

Will also note that the R majority (not fringe) recently enthusiastically supported a guy credibly accused of child molestation.  The left abandoned a guy that did much less (but is still a weirdo). 

[No Excuses]

Trumpism seems to be going well for the GOP

 

 

[PleaseBlitz]

Interesting nugget from a Cook Political Report item mostly on the implications of PA-19 about California's House delegation.  Obviously Dems need to pick up 24 seats to win the House.  California has 9 Republican Reps, but there is a good chance there will be zero Republicans on the state wide ballot (for Gov. or Senator).  So R's will have much less reason to vote in general, which could hurt the House R incumbents.    If you look at the results of the previous special elections and extrapolate that anything that isn't "likely Republican" is a pickup for the Dems, that is 6 seats right there.

 

Quote

“If it is two Democrats running off for governor and two Democrats running off for US Senator,” Quinn suggested, GOP voters will have little reason to show up. “In 2016, hundreds of thousands of Republicans did not vote in the all-Democratic Senate race. If they stay home in those numbers in 2018, Republicans could easily lose half the congressional delegation and a third of their legislators” assuming Democrats turn out in high numbers, he wrote.

 

The Los Angeles Times’s ace political reporter Mark Z. Barabak wrote on March 1, “There is a good chance, under the state’s top-two voting system, [Republicans] won’t have any candidates running for governor or U.S. Senate in the fall, leaving vulnerable House members stranded with no one atop the ballot to spur Republican turnout.”

 

Republicans already have two open seats in California that are rated by The Cook Political Report as “Lean Democrat”: Rep. Ed Royce’s 39th District and Rep. Darrell Issa’s 49th District. Three incumbents’ districts are rated as “Toss Up”: Reps. Jeff Denham in the 10th, Steve Knight in the 25th, and Dana Rohrabacher in the 48th. Another is rated “Lean Republican”: Rep. Mimi Walters in the 45th. And three more are on the “Likely Republican” list: Reps. Tom McClintock in the 4th, David Valadao in the 21st, and Duncan D. Hunter in the 50th. So Republicans have a lot at stake in the Golden State.

 

http://cookpolitical.com/analysis/national/national-politics/troubling-signs-gop-electoral-horizon

[DogofWar1]

 

I was wondering how they'd spin this one.

 

Man, dude says a couple nice things about gun rights and suddenly he's Trump's right hand man, despite supporting ACA, opposing tax cuts, and being pro-choice.

[LadySkinsFan]

From the picture, Asshole wasn't in PA-18 to stump for Lamb.

[bearrock]

13 minutes ago, DogofWar1 said:

 

I was wondering how they'd spin this one.

 

Man, dude says a couple nice things about gun rights and suddenly he's Trump's right hand man, despite supporting ACA, opposing tax cuts, and being pro-choice.

In related news, White House agrees to follow the direction of Rep. Lamb on everything, cause apparently Lamb is a Republican and they like all of his positions.  

[PleaseBlitz]

2 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said:

From the picture, Asshole wasn't in PA-18 to stump for Lamb.

 

Yea, Trump's closing argument for electing Rick Saccone was that Maxine Waters has a low IQ.  

[visionary]

 

[AJ*]

3 hours ago, DogofWar1 said:

 

I was wondering how they'd spin this one.

 

Man, dude says a couple nice things about gun rights and suddenly he's Trump's right hand man, despite supporting ACA, opposing tax cuts, and being pro-choice.

 

[visionary]

 

[visionary]

 

[Cooked Crack]

 

[visionary]

 

[twa]

So are the Dems gonna run more people like Lamb?

 

Or are they just acceptable in certain cases.

[DogofWar1]

7 minutes ago, twa said:

So are the Dems gonna run more people like Lamb?

 

Or are they just acceptable in certain cases.

I mean, he was pretty progressive overall so yeah.  A couple right leaning positions does not make one a DINO.

[LadySkinsFan]

I don't mind even someone espousing an anti-abortion position as long as they don't try to legislate that position into law. 

 

Lamb says he's anti-abortion but supports Roe v. Wade. That's as it should be. 

[88Comrade2000]

Could Lamb win in California?  Could a Californian win in say West Virginia?

In 2006, the Dems accepted all kinds of Dems and they won back control of congress. 

4 years later they really didn't care and lost the House.

 

If the Dem voters accept that, different areas need different type of candidates; they should be okay. Once size doesn't fit all.  If they don't and insist on purity; then they won't win back control of the House.

 

Senate, is something different. There's too many incumbent Dems running in areas where Trump won by large margins.  It's one thing to win a district but to win a whole state; is something different.  

 

Having House lays the foundation for 2020.  You pass your agenda.  A GOP senate won't do **** and Trump won't agree with you.  That's gives you something to run on in 2020.  You also, can investigate the hell out of the Trump administration and impeach him. There's enough there to impeach him. That will drive him mad, literally.

 

If the Dems have complete control of Congress, then they do what they GOP did.  Pass their agenda and let Trump veto it.  Gives them something to run on in 2020.  Trump can either make a deal or decide to run Like Harry Truman and say the Democratic congress is a do anything congress and blocking my Agenda.  Investigate and impeach.