achilles return

us politics and elections thread

3,000 posts in this topic

28 minutes ago, GEORGIAfan said:

Here's why the Pennsylvania special election result should freak out Republicans

There's been a lot of either-or argument over what the future of the Democratic Party should be. Should Democrats seek to build a coalition of college-educated suburbanites plus white urbanites and minorities, or should they try to win back blue-collar white voters who have fallen away from the party in recent decades?

In the special election on Tuesday in Pennsylvania's 18th Congressional District, a place where President Trump won by 20 points in 2016, likely winner Democrat Conor Lamb showed Democrats don't have to choose. He managed to do three things at once:

  • Maintain gains that Hillary Clinton made in affluent, educated suburban areas in 2016,
  • Regain working-class voters who picked Barack Obama in 2008 or 2012 but rejected Clinton in 2016, and
  • Win over voters who rejected Obama and Clinton in all three elections.

These results should hearten Democrats and scare Republicans, especially when examined on a town-by-town basis.

Consider, for example, Mt. Lebanon, an affluent and highly educated Pittsburgh suburb that's included in the 18th. Obama took 54% of the two-party vote here in 2012.

Despite losing the state, Clinton improved strongly on Obama's performance in Mt. Lebanon, as she did in many suburban, well-to-do areas in Pennsylvania. She got 64% of the two-party vote.

On Tuesday, Conor Lamb got 72%.

Now consider Franklin Township in rural Greene County, where the median family income is less than half what it is in Mt. Lebanon.

While this area of Pennsylvania has a Democratic tradition, recent Democratic presidential nominees have done poorly here. Barack Obama got 34% of the two-party vote, and Hillary Clinton got just 28%.

Conor Lamb managed 43% on Tuesday.

That is, he did better than Clinton where Clinton did better than Obama, and better than Obama where Obama did better than Clinton.

Now, imagine that laid out across the country: Democratic candidates holding together the Clinton coalition, while rebuilding the Obama coalition and then adding on some new voters who weren't part of either.

This result bodes well in places like Orange County, California, and central New Jersey: affluent suburbs where Clinton won in spite of a long Republican tradition. And it bodes just as well in places like eastern Iowa — and other Rust Belt districts like Pennsylvania's 18th — where Democrats have lost their previous strength.

This is just one election result, though it's in line with many other special election results where Democrats have strongly outperformed their 2016 results. But it's one that should make Republicans feel bad about their odds in November — and one that should make Democrats reconsider how much they really need to fight among themselves about the future direction of the Democratic coalition.

http://www.businessinsider.com/conor-lamb-rick-saccone-pennsylvania-special-election-should-terrify-republicans-2018-3

And a lower turnout doesn't affect percentage? So yeah, like I said, lower turnout for GOP areas was the main problem outside of the idea that someone can just gun for 1 county and win...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, capologist said:

And a lower turnout doesn't affect percentage? So yeah, like I said, lower turnout for GOP areas was the main problem outside of the idea that someone can just gun for 1 county and win...

Why is that a problem? If more people (The people you're being elected to represent) live in that county I'm not seeing a problem. It's not just "1 county" it's most of the people.

 

Edit: ahh....now I see your previous post.

mdrake34 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, capologist said:

Nah, the only thing that would have made a difference is better GOP turnout.  Lamb won Allegheny county and that's it.  Everyone knew he'd win that county big, Hillary won that county big.  Just another shining example of the Apportionment Act of 1911 and everything horrible it brings with it (and that's not because a Democrat won btw)

...

The 18th district was drawn up to crack the Democratic stronghold of Allegheny so it shouldn't be surprising that Lamb only won there. It's why that district is getting redrawn by the court. That Republicans managed to lose in such a district is a whole other issue for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, GEORGIAfan said:

 

Future voter's whose mind may have been shaped early on by liberal progresses, one day have to go out on their own, pay their own bills, and discover the ideology they once had goes out the window and they at least come to the realization that being more to the center or slightly conservative, is in their best interest.  

This is a Serge sentence if I ever saw one...sorry I stepped on your toes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You, a WFW:

2 minutes ago, WhenFalconsWin said:

Future voter's whose mind may have been shaped early on by liberal progresses, one day have to go out on their own, pay their own bills, and discover the ideology they once had goes out the window and they at least come to the realization that being more to the center or slightly conservative, is in their best interest.  

This is a Serge sentence if I ever saw one...sorry I stepped on your toes

 

C7fo3PAXQAAi2IP.jpg

C7fo3PgXkAE1QiK.jpg

Me, an intellectual:

That theory may have held for older generations, but is actually not true for Gen X and Millenials. Plus Republicans have had 2 back to back unpopular presidents with these groups and a popular democratic president sandwiched between them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Psychic Gibbon said:

The 18th district was drawn up to crack the Democratic stronghold of Allegheny so it shouldn't be surprising that Lamb only won there. It's why that district is getting redrawn by the court. That Republicans managed to lose in such a district is a whole other issue for them.

If Democrats run more center-leaning candidates like Lamb, they'll take more seats.  Not sure the Dems will get that lesson learned out of it but we'll see.  How the district was drawn up isn't the issue, it's the size of it and what that allows that's really the issue...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, GEORGIAfan said:

You, a WFW:

C7fo3PAXQAAi2IP.jpg

C7fo3PgXkAE1QiK.jpg

Me, an intellectual:

 

Didn't Stephen Hawking just call you a loser for telling us about your intelligence? 

In a 2004 interview with the New York Times, Hawking was asked what his IQ was.

He said:

I have no idea.

People who boast about their IQ are losers.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, capologist said:

If Democrats run more center-leaning candidates like Lamb, they'll take more seats.  Not sure the Dems will get that lesson learned out of it but we'll see.  How the district was drawn up isn't the issue, it's the size of it and what that allows that's really the issue...

They've won in areas favoring Republicans with centrists, progressives, and socialists. The only real lesson is to compete everywhere.

GEORGIAfan likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you youngins get older and start listening to Rush and Hannity, you'll start supporting idiots who parrot the same talking points, just like I did!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, WhenFalconsWin said:

Didn't Stephen Hawking just call you a loser for telling us about your intelligence? 

In a 2004 interview with the New York Times, Hawking was asked what his IQ was.

He said:

I have no idea.

People who boast about their IQ are losers.

 

There is one guy I can think of who he'd be describing there though....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, capologist said:

If Democrats run more center-leaning candidates like Lamb, they'll take more seats.  Not sure the Dems will get that lesson learned out of it but we'll see.  How the district was drawn up isn't the issue, it's the size of it and what that allows that's really the issue...

As long as they only campaign "Center" and they move Left once in office, then America will turn out alright.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, capologist said:

Nah, the only thing that would have made a difference is better GOP turnout.  Lamb won Allegheny county and that's it.  Everyone knew he'd win that county big, Hillary won that county big.  Just another shining example of the Apportionment Act of 1911 and everything horrible it brings with it (and that's not because a Democrat won btw)

...

This is about more than turnout and it's about more than PA18. This is a running trend that has been present in almost every special election. If you think Republicans aren't concerned and it's all about GOP turnout you're gonna be disappointed unless there's a HUGE change (Which is entirely possible) in the next several months.

 

This article breaks it down fairly well.

"What the graph above suggests, though, is that the results of special elections aren’t necessarily related to those turnout shifts. Most of the special elections have taken place in districts that Trump won; shifts in the Democrat-to-Republican margin in those places may or may not lead to victory depending on how big a deficit the Democrats faced there in 2016."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/03/14/what-the-pennsylvania-special-election-tells-us-about-the-democratic-turnout-surge/?utm_term=.5610be0e7119

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Jpowers said:

This is about more than turnout and it's about more than PA18. This is a running trend that has been present in almost every special election. If you think Republicans aren't concerned and it's all about GOP turnout you're gonna be disappointed unless there's a HUGE change (Which is entirely possible) in the next several months.

 

This article breaks it down fairly well.

"What the graph above suggests, though, is that the results of special elections aren’t necessarily related to those turnout shifts. Most of the special elections have taken place in districts that Trump won; shifts in the Democrat-to-Republican margin in those places may or may not lead to victory depending on how big a deficit the Democrats faced there in 2016."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/03/14/what-the-pennsylvania-special-election-tells-us-about-the-democratic-turnout-surge/?utm_term=.5610be0e7119

What makes you think I'd be disappointed?  I don't really care what the GOP does...lol  Remember, I'm the guy that's saying there's not much difference in one or the other being in office.  I really wish I felt comfortable saying how I really feel about the way things are but I'm just not given what I do for a living and who I work for.  ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, capologist said:

What makes you think I'd be disappointed?  I don't really care what the GOP does...lol  Remember, I'm the guy that's saying there's not much difference in one or the other being in office.  I really wish I felt comfortable saying how I really feel about the way things are but I'm just not given what I do for a living and who I work for.  ;)

Because you're a dude who hates libs. It's a common occurrence with libertarians from what I can tell. They claim to be non-partisan but a lot of them side with Republicans 90% of the time. It goes back to the old joke about what the difference between a Libertarian and a Republican is......... influence.

WOR and Psychic Gibbon like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Jpowers said:

Because you're a dude who hates libs. It's a common occurrence with libertarians from what I can tell. They claim to be non-partisan but a lot of them side with Republicans 90% of the time. It goes back to the old joke about what the difference between a Libertarian and a Republican is......... influence.

I'd say I dislike Lib philosophies more than Republicans philosophies, that's a fair statement but not to a 90% degree.  Example:  The thought of President Pence or Sessions scares the bajeezus out of me...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, capologist said:

I'd say I dislike Lib philosophies more than Republicans philosophies, that's a fair statement but not to a 90% degree.  Example:  The thought of President Pence or Sessions scares the bajeezus out of me...

Okay. I think that's fair. I think I've come to realize I'm the other side of that coin.....except on Sessions and Pence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So about Connor Lamb, I'm happy to see a non-Republican candidate co-opt the pro-Gun rights message and defeat an incumbent Republican. We can learn here from Pres. Putin's favorite pastime: use your opponent's strengths against them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Sn4tteRBoxXeR said:

So about Connor Lamb, I'm happy to see a non-Republican candidate co-opt the pro-Gun rights message and defeat an incumbent Republican. We can learn here from Pres. Putin's favorite pastime: use your opponent's strengths against them.

Pretty sure a Chinese dude covered that way back in the day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now