2018 Midterm Elections

[carpedm9587]

It appears that in the recent special election. Paul Ryan's SuperPAC campaigned for Lamb.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com...at-conor-lamb/

We saw something similar in Alabama when some Republicans turned their back on Roy Moore. That could make it tough for Republican candidates if members of their own party come out in support of their opponents.

Perhaps Republicans should consider why they are running candidates that their party cannot unify behind...?

That being said, I doubt there has ever been an election without at least some amount of party cross-over.

[JimL]

What effect do you think about the fact that the Democrat candidate made a point to mirror several of Trump's positions not to mention a very anti-Nancy Pelosi campaign had and may mean?

That's just the nonsense that the echo chamber feeds you. Not every Democrat holds to the exact same idea's. But the fact is that Lamb is against Trumps tax cuts, he's against repealing Obamacare, he's pro-choice, he's pro union, he's pro gun regulation- stricter background checks. Prior to the election the right wing was calling Lamb a Nancy Pelosi democrat, now that he won they're calling him a Trumpster.

[JimL]

I think it means that we are seeing Democrats that are moving more to the center, and learning lessons from 2016. Meanwhile, republican candidates appear to be moving more to the right. I also think it means Pelosi will soon be more widely seen by Democrats as the handicap she is. They are in a tough place with her: shes a liability politically, but she is a tremendous asset financially.

There is also an interesting dynamic that may be at play here. In fairly red districts, Republicans may well find that they cannot win the Republican primary without hitching their wagon to Trump. Then, when the general election comes along, that association will stick to them, and fire up the left, making it hard for them to win the general election. Of course, that won't be true of all districts. But there are about 110 districts where Trump won with a narrower margin than in PA-18. Democrats need 23 of them. Statistically, the number of districts that shift when a president is below 50% approval is north of 40.

The numbers do not look good for Republicans.

Republicans have been moving further to the right for decades now. How do you think we ended up with the crazy we have now. And the only reason that Pelosi is a liability is because of the right wing tactic of demonizing those they fear most of the opposition, not because she is any more to the left than other liberals. They did the same to Obama and they will do the same to whomever takes Pelosi's place should the spineless democrats cave to the tactic rather than standing up to it and defending her.

[JimL]

Eh, Lamb was favored going in, but the fact that he won by the slimmest of margins doesn't give Democrats much reason to celebrate because it gives him pretty much zero momentum going into November.

Trump won the district by 23% and Lamb was favored going in? Not that I believe that for an instant, but if true, it should tell you something?

I know liberals keep harping about this supposed "blue wave", but I think it's going to end up being much like Hillary's "blue wall" that was supposed to guarantee her a victory. The wall crumbled, and I suspect the wave will dissipate once the real campaigning begins.

Yes, well the problem with that thought, is the evidence. Democrats are already winning just about everywhere, and in cases where they have lost, they have cut deeply into the percentage of Hillary's loss to Trump.

[JimL]

Healthcare - yes. Deficits? My impression is that parties care about deficits until they gain power - and then they mostly spend. Democrats don't seem to be any more immune to that than Republicans.

Republicans cut taxes, particularly for the wealthy, start unnecessary wars, and increase debts and deficits. Democrats are then left to clean up their mess, and sometimes, such as in the case of Obama, you can't immediately put an end to the increasing debt and deficits that republicans set in motion.

[Mountain Man]

Lamb was favored going in?

Yes, Democrats had a 50,000+ registration advantage going into this election, so the numbers were on Lamb's side before the first vote was even cast.

[JimL]

Problem with your theory is that democrats tried this about 10 years ago towards the end of Bush era and beginning of the Obama era. Problem is many of these consertives democrats were used as fodder to pass the ACA and other such bills and ended up losing those gains. Only time will tell if democrats learned anything yet or if they end up the same way 10 years from now.

Ah, the ACA still exists sweetie, and so does medicare, social security, medicaid, food stamps, CHIP, and every other social program passed by democrats. Some democrats lost their jobs on principle, but thats the way it sometimes has to go in order to get things done in the interests of the American people over the obstruction of republican special interests.

[Sparko]

As I noted - we shall see...

"Elect us and we will raise your taxes!" is not normally a good campaign strategy.

Oh how I wish we had congressional term limits.

[JimL]

Yes, Democrats had a 50,000+ registration advantage going into this election, so the numbers were on Lamb's side before the first vote was even cast.

They had the same 50,000+ registration advantage when Trump won the district by 23%.

[carpedm9587]

Republicans have been moving further to the right for decades now. How do you think we ended up with the crazy we have now. And the only reason that Pelosi is a liability is because of the right wing tactic of demonizing those they fear most of the opposition, not because she is any more to the left than other liberals. They did the same to Obama and they will do the same to whomever takes Pelosi's place should the spineless democrats cave to the tactic rather than standing up to it and defending her.

They did the same to Clinton. But in politics, perception is reality. If someone has been successfully demonized, and has not been able to successfully counter that effect - then they have become a liability. Clinto was a good candidate in 2016 for several reasons, and she was a poor choice for several reasons. One way in which she was a poor candidate was the degree to which she was hated by the right, and she was unable to counter it. Indeed, she stepped right into that narrative multiple times (e.g., the deplorables comment, her secretive handling of her pneumonia, etc.).

[carpedm9587]

Republicans cut taxes, particularly for the wealthy, start unnecessary wars, and increase debts and deficits. Democrats are then left to clean up their mess, and sometimes, such as in the case of Obama, you can't immediately put an end to the increasing debt and deficits that republicans set in motion.

I think you have a very skewed perception of "Republican as bad" and "Democrat as good." There are several parts of the Republican platform I agree with, and the same with Democrats. There are several parts of both platforms I seriously disagree with.

[carpedm9587]

Yes, Democrats had a 50,000+ registration advantage going into this election, so the numbers were on Lamb's side before the first vote was even cast.

There is no question that there is significant energy on the left to get out the vote and beef registrations. Frankly, that should raise concern on the Republican sides. If this can be done in a district that was so skewed to the right that Democrats did not even run candidates in the last two election cycles, and Trump took it by 20+ percentage points, then a lot of districts currently held by Republicans are likewise in deep doodoo.

[carpedm9587]

"Elect us and we will raise your taxes!" is not normally a good campaign strategy.

Oh how I wish we had congressional term limits.

Unless the message is - "we will restore the taxes cut for the rich - and cut the middle and lower classes."

But I DO agree on term limits. We badly need them. That means we have to elect people for whom it is a priority - and boot them out if they do not act.

[Sparko]

Unless the message is - "we will restore the taxes cut for the rich - and cut the middle and lower classes."

But I DO agree on term limits. We badly need them. That means we have to elect people for whom it is a priority - and boot them out if they do not act.

And they need a retirement age. We don't need 80 and 90 year old codgers who can't even stay awake to be running our government.

[Zymologist]

And they need a retirement age. We don't need 80 and 90 year old codgers who can't even stay awake to be running our government.

That one seems a bit strict...you'd rule me out.

...nvm