PA-18 Special Election - Lamb by a nose

[Badger]

They're both Appalachia but SWVA is more Southern Appalachia and SWPA is more Midwestern Appalachia. And isn't PA-18 more urban? Suburbs make up a sizable share of the district.

It's overwhelmingly Suburban, including some inner ring Pittsburgh suburbs.

EDIT: just double-checked the maps. It also has a lot of Rural and small-town areas in the Southwest corner of the state, but even some of those are for commuters to the Greater Pittsburgh area

[Badger]

Another fantastic ad by the Lamb campaign. This guy is really authentic.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4syLKd2Rts

Pretty good, but he has to train himself not to steal little glances at the camera when he's doing a ubiquitous "intimate conversation with someone in his living room" advertisement.

My biggest complaint of course is the utter lack of recorder music. What were they thinking?

[Badger]

I don't see why all the republicans are alarmed by Saccone. He seem like a decent candidate and decent human being, I of course support Lamb, but strategically wise I would give him and his campaign a B, I would give his decent human being rating about a B-, and I would rate his politics from my view as about a D. Not the best, but I don't see why the GOP is panicking.

That whole proudly torturing people gives him a significantly lower human being grade than B- in my book.

[Badger]

I don't see why all the republicans are alarmed by Saccone. He seem like a decent candidate and decent human being, I of course support Lamb, but strategically wise I would give him and his campaign a B, I would give his decent human being rating about a B-, and I would rate his politics from my view as about a D. Not the best, but I don't see why the GOP is panicking.

That whole proudly torturing people gives him a significantly lower human being grade than B- in my book.

Not really a biggie in my book there, most of those people deserve it.

Your use of the words "deserve" and, particularly, "most" are..... disheartening.

[Badger]

Words like "torture" and "thug" are a flashing yellow light for this thread to go off track from a discussion of this specific Congressional race to a very heated and emotional discussion of a marginally related topic. Let's try to stick to the specifics of this election and not get sidetracked into volatile issues.

Um, Brittain, you are literally one of the best mods around and always have been, but are you SERIOUSLY implying that one of the candidates in this race having committed torture and proudly defended it - - forgive me if I don't use pussy words like enhanced interrogation techniques - - is somehow NOT directly and inseparably related to that candidates Fitness for office? I mean come on, if we are going to discuss Donald Trump's fleecing the gullible with Trump University, shouldn't a congressional candidates Unapologetic use of torture on prisoners is more than a little relevant? That this is somehow a "distraction" to the thread rather than directly related?!?

Sorry, but you this one time simply wrong , wrong, wrong. While bagel and I obviously have strong disagreements about the use of torture , he is dead right that it's directly related to this election on which the thread is based

[Badger]

Hey all,

I don't consider it the moderator's place to prevent discussion of relevant topics, so based on the response, I'm not going to stand in the way of discussions of torture as an issue if it is a point of disagreement between Saccone and Lamb.

My experience as a moderator is that discussions which get into enthusiasm for violence and vengeance against individuals, whether politicians, wannabe politicians, or classes of people, don't go well. This has happened with people like President Trump and Chelsea Manning and it just blows everything up and kills off other discussion. If we can avoid that fate and avoid overheated discussion, it won't get moderated.

Please sir, I humbly entreat you to travel the path of honesty. It is a fact that someone deleted two unreported posts of mine last evening on this thread on the issue, respectfully arguing and backing up with sources, the case that torture against bad people is not immoral, rather just ineffective.

At the risk of derailing this (screw you Brittain ), if you--correctly--acknowledge torturing "mostly" bad people is ineffective, then how is it not immoral? Surely the only possible argument for it is its utility in some people's minds picturing a "Jack Bauer--24" scenario where a new 9/11 is prevented at the last moment by a dedicated government agent who plays by his own rules breaking the individual fingers of terrorists until they scream out where the detonator is hidden, etc. etc. etc.

Without that scenario, which you and I both recognize is Hollywood fantasy and contradicted by actual intelligence interrogators, what possible moral justification remains for the use of such tactics?

Oh, and thus how isn't Saccone a poophead? (/obligatory reference to the thread subject)

[Badger]

Interesting note, but I read a tweet that the PA GOP moved Lamb's home into Doyle's PA-14 in their redraw map.

Wolf's going to veto it.

Definitely, but it also shows the Pennsylvania GOP is seriously scared lamb is going to win this

[Badger]

Saccone would be one of the better Republicans in congress, it would be tolerable.

Wut?

Seriously, wut?

[Badger]

It's understandable that he wants to win the race, but that doesn't make him any less of a coward.
Doug Jones ran in Alabama and he wasn't afraid to say he was pro-choice and supported the DREAM act.

Many cultural conservatives say they're pro-life, but in the end, enough of them can stomach voting for a pro-choicer. 

Guns are a different story.  There are a HELL of a lot of gun owners, and they will view gun control as affecting them personally.

Really?
Because all these years we are told that "Protecting the Rights of the Unborn" is THE issue for social conservatives,

Yes and no. There are a lot of diehard pro-life voters who will never vote for any candidate on the wrong side of this issue (and a number of such pro-choice voters, but fewer IMO who will actually switch their votes on this sole issue). However, there are a lot of nominal "anti-abortion" voters, many of whom if pressed don't really want to see abortion made illegal but still consider themselves "pro-life". Those folks will vote for a pro-choice Doug Jones (or Conor Lamb). However, many of these same voters see anti-gun legislation as "the first step to taking away my gun rights" and (egged on by a flyer and call or two from the NRA the week before election) will oppose any "anti-gun" candidate in a way they might let a "pro-choice" candidate slide.

There's a lot of such voters in PA-18. That said, I have to agree I'm not sure whether this is a right read of what he needs to do to win. I question whether he could argue for "sensible gun laws" while "still strongly supporting the Second Amendment". There are a lot of gun owners in the district who wouldn't be overly offended by that, outside the hardcore NRA voters who aren't likely to vote for him to begin with. Leave Saccone to take a typically hard line stance and seem out of step for the times.

I don't know. It's a hard call either way. All I can say to Bagel and others is Saccone will be no better. The question is which is more open to reasonable compromise if elected.

[Badger]

Longtime lurker. Signed up to comment on this race. I think Lamb is going to pull it out.
First off, special elections always get more people from the opposing party out, especially with someone so unpopular in the White House. Second, the polling is definitely trending Lamb's way. And Saccone is a terrible candidate, just a generic Trumpster Republican with no new ideas. I think this latest school shooting really drives the point home that if we need anything, it's new ideas. I look forward to seeing how this race turns out. This year is going to be a Blue Wave regardless of the result in this race.

Hi man, and welcome! Two questions: Do you have any authority for the idea more voters from the out of power party tend to show up for special elections? I mean, it FEELS like a correct statement in my gut, much like the general trend for off-year elections in general, but I was just wondering.

Secondly, have the polls really turned towards Lamb? They seem to have all been in a low to mid single digit Saccone lead. The most recent showing Saccone up by 6 is actually an improvement on the last two polls showing him up only 3 points each. Caveat for MoE and all that acknowledged, but I'm wondering if there's some other polls you're aware of, even via word of mouth from people in the respective campaigns?

Just looking for every crumb of info on this really interesting race. Again, welcome!

[Badger]

OK, so how do the new maps for 2018 potentially affect the special election? I'm specifically thinking if I'm Saccone I loudly announce a promise that if elected to run in the newly re-drawn 14th District where the vast majority of current PA-18 voters reside. Basically making the argument of why elect someone who won't be representing you (or at least most of you) come next year? It basically puts Lamb on the spot to promise he'll run in the new PA-14 rather than against Rothfuss in PA-17 (which of course he'll never do), or admit he'll dump the voters he's currently asking to support him in Greene, Washington, and Westmoreland Counties to instead continue representing only the South Hills portion of the district.

A potential issue for Saccone?

[Badger]

Badger,
Lamb now lives in the new Rothfus' district. It ils obvious he will run there and he won't be portrayed as a carpetbagger as he now lives there.

I'm not making my point very well here. Right, there won't be any issue about lamb running in the 17th District. I'm wondering if Saccone could argue that voters in the current 14th should vote for him over land because outside of the part of the district in the South Hills, I am won't be representing anyone in this District after this year. If I am Saccone, I would argue that voters should choose a candidate in the special election who is going to continue representing them for years to come, not just for the next 10 months.

Again, that applies to all the voters in the current Pennsylvania 14 the South Hills. That is, the vast majority of the district. When inevitably question about his intentions, what is lamb going to say?

[Badger]

Badger,
Lamb now lives in the new Rothfus' district. It ils obvious he will run there and he won't be portrayed as a carpetbagger as he now lives there.

I'm not making my point very well here. Right, there won't be any issue about lamb running in the 17th District. I'm wondering if Saccone could argue that voters in the current 14th should vote for him over land because outside of the part of the district in the South Hills, I am won't be representing anyone in this District after this year. If I am Saccone, I would argue that voters should choose a candidate in the special election who is going to continue representing them for years to come, not just for the next 10 months.

Again, that applies to all the voters in the current Pennsylvania 14 the South Hills. That is, the vast majority of the district. When inevitably question about his intentions, what is lamb going to say?

Could be a potent argument, but the fact that Saccone too lives outside the new 14th makes him a flawed messenger.

Well, sure, but unlike Lamb he can aggressively and convincingly vow to relocate to the new 14th if elected in order to keep representing the district's current (special election) voters, and persistently call on Lamb to do the same.

 Or would Saccone necessarily have to move to continue running in/ representing the 14th District even if he lives outside its boundaries? There was some debate about that earlier in this thread, or maybe the PA redistricting thread.

At any rate, the issue for voters might not be Who currently does or doesn't live within the boundaries of the new District, it's who is going to continue representing the voters of the district ( again, outside of the South Hills) after this year? Saccone can convincingly pledge that he will continue representing voters of the new 14th District as long as they wish to keep him, but lamb isn't going to be representing any of the districts Washington, Fayette, or Westmoreland County voters after December 31st, so why elect a mere caretaker congressman?

At any rate, I think, but I'm still not certain, that the best thing a lamb could do when inevitably pose with the question is dissemble about focusing on next month's election, leaving all opportunities open, seeking to represent voters in southwestern Pennsylvania who are seeing their health care and Social Security threatened, etc etc, and hope that redistricting and what district hill run in next year is too inside baseball for almost any voters to care about. However, if Saccone is smart - - so frankly I've seen nothing from his campaign or speeches so far to convince me of that - - he'll make this an issue and work his ass off to convince Fayette, Westmoreland, and Washington County voters that lamb will not be their congressmen after this year regardless of who wins the special election, so why not elect Saccone who will stick with representing them for many years to come.

[Badger]

This is a robotic, defensive ad from Lamb: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gYEUHmTe68

Thanks Richard.

[Badger]

INBOX: Conor Lamb has raised a whopping $3.2 million since January.  It's why he's been able to be competitive with the outside GOP ad buys -- even with the DCCC pulling out of the race.

https://twitter.com/HotlineJosh/status/968549891835400192

Why on Earth would the D Triple C pull out? Is there a single special election race they haven't been dead wrong in terms of when to throw down and when the pool off. They go gangbusters for ossoff, but stay on the periphery for those razor-thin specials in South Carolina and Kansas that could have flipped. The examples go on and on.

Gives me some hope as a republican that we won't keep the house. So it depresses me in that I hate Ryan

[Badger]

Oh, I'm pissed with Lamb, pro tarriffs, really?! God darnit, I'm gonna take down his stupid a$$ sign. Too many straws on this camel. (Ik my opinion, endorsements, and actions don't matter, but it's just a thing I do, ok.)

So you'll support the torture guy who supports the tariffs 110%? Ditto with gun control?

[Badger]

https://twitter.com/hotlinejosh/status/970282763415941120?s=21

Goodbye "Trump tax cuts", hello "Lamb wants MS-13 to babysit your grandchildren."

"Here’s how tricky things have gotten for Republicans: GOP outside groups have dramatically scaled back their ads promoting the party’s tax cut, with the messaging barely moving the needle in the district’s working-class confines. The latest round of advertisements focus on law-and-order issues, like immigration and crime. A new spot from the Paul Ryan-aligned Congressional Leadership Fund super PAC slams Lamb for supporting “amnesty to illegal immigrants” because he “worked in the Obama administration.” A National Republican Congressional Committee ad portrays Lamb as soft on crime because he negotiated a plea deal with a notorious drug kingpin during his tenure as a federal prosecutor. These culture-war ads are reminiscent of those run by Ed Gillespie in his failed Virginia gubernatorial campaign, and they carry the whiff of desperation."

And on the flip side https://mobile.twitter.com/MediumBuying/status/970311872334454785

This ad will make krazey's head explode.

Oh, so there's two good things about it.

Makes me want to add it as a Sig in the hope it actually works.

[Badger]

Solid, if you're going off of my phone banking then your prediction isn't accurate. Far more are saying Lamb, I'm just saying people are so nice and it's difficult when even the nicest say they are voting Saccone.

Well, I assume like most phone banks that you are targeting at least undecided to soft democratic voters, or possibly even just get out the vote for historically reliable Democrat votes. Even if it's the former, you should expect a significant lamb advantage, as not too many reliable let alone hardcore Republican voters are going to slip into your call list ( with inevitable exceptions of course).

[Badger]

Delete your account.

[Badger]

I phonebanked a little this morning. Was talking with this woman who supported Lamb when I saw the Gravis poll. Unfortunately, this race is now Safe R and I told the woman that she shouldn't bother voting. She had heard about the Democratic collapse in the Texas primary and thought the same.

So I see you've given up even attempting to troll.

Mods, please nuke.

Do people understand what a joke is? For gods sake, I literally copied Virginia's post and added some colors and characters.

If by that you mean you tried jumping on the bandwagon of her exquisitely funny post with some stale failed attempt at me-too humor, yeah, we know.

It just was dull.

[Badger]

College graduates were 50% of the electorate in 2016 nationally, and this district is more educated than the nation as a whole, so I don't understand why Cohn thinks it's so funny for 60% to be in this race (especially when coupled with college graduates being disproportionately represented in low-turnout contests)...?

Unless he thinks that age will be a much stronger factor than education (presumably a large percentage of 55+ in this district are not college graduates), I'm not seeing what's so wrong with that figure.

Because people think we're just a bunch of dumbass blue-collar workers . I honestly now understand the frustration of some Trump voters.

You're definitely not a bunch of dumbass blue-collar workers, but you're certainly not 60% college educated.

We are higher than the national average, and it's just one poll. College educated voters turnout more often. I'm tired that privileged white guys like Nate Cohn are so far up their asshole that they can't believe that we, in fact, aren't as dumb as a bag of rocks like they originally thought.

Word for the burg.

[Badger]

The needle gives me anxiety.

That's not uncommon.  Lots of people have a fear of needles.

Tip of the Fedora there, sir. Well played indeed.

[Badger]

The needle is back to stab everyone in the heart

What's the needle?

Their live prediction forecast while returns are coming in.  See https://www.nytimes.com/elections/forecast/president for an example.

Forget the needle oh, people. The real question is will Ben Kenobi be back with his specialized and insightful voting model that missed the results of the Alabama Race by only about 8 points even with 70% of the vote in.

[Badger]

The needle is back to stab everyone in the heart

What's the needle?

Their live prediction forecast while returns are coming in.  See https://www.nytimes.com/elections/forecast/president for an example.

Forget the needle oh, people. The real question is will Ben Kenobi be back with his specialized and insightful voting model that missed the results of the Alabama Race by only about 8 points even with 70% of the vote in.

Don't we have Limo's mind model now?

Some people with play with model trains, limos analysis is the equivalent of a model train wreck.

[Badger]

This *may* be the end for Lamb...ugh: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2018/03/11/pittsburgh-paper-backs-republican-in-house-race-warning-of-impeachment-distraction-if-democrats-win/

Hmm, I wonder if this paper endorsed Dem control of House in 1994, 1998, 2010, and 2014 out of fear of impeachment of a Dem President.  Somehow I doubt it.

Definitely not. This paper was a liberal, though high quality, newspaper since time immemorial. It was only since it was bought out by some right-wing Publishing House in the past couple years that it's turned into a complete rag.

 I can appreciate a good conservative op-ed from legit sources like the Wall Street Journal, but it is really depressing to see the Post-Gazette turn into such a rag.

It might change a few Minds on the margins, but I question the extent. Maybe locals like doctor cynic can tell us whether or not the Post-Gazette truly has much respect left in the region, or if that since then management switch over if it's now widely considered the paper version of Fox News that simply preaches to the converted on their op-ed page.