Conner Lamb will represent PA-18
First I stress the great effort I put into avoiding all Lamb puns in the title.
Second, I think the discussion of his recent extremely narrow voctory makes the discussion of the campaign seem almost sane.
Before their humiliating loss, Republican operatives insisted that voters were coming around to support their tax cut bill. In spite of the lack of much movement in public polls, they claimed they had private polls showing increased approval. They neglected to mention the fact that they had shifted from arguing against Lamb on the (accurate) grounds that he denounced the tax cut to arguing on the grounds that the former prosecutor was allegedly soft on crkme.
Then he won. Suddenly, Republicans discover that Lamb won because he supported their tax bill, in spite of the fact that he “opposed the tax cuts as a ‘complete betrayal of the middle class.'” When faced with an inconvenient fact, they just lied claiming he campaigned supporting the tax bill.
I think this is a new form or Republican insanity. For 38 years, they have insisted that the secret to economic growth is tax cuts which will pay for themselves (give or take a trillion). This is an absolute article of faith. Even Sen Susan Collins restated the orthodox fantasy. But now they have a new insane article of faith which is that all tax cuts are popular, and their generally disliked tax bill will save them in November.
In this case too, no evidence can dent their (stated) certainty. Not even the evidence from PA-18, where there was a huge “independent expenditure” campaign telling people that a vote for Lamb was a vote against the tax bill. The total failure of this effort (demonstrated by opinion polls before election day) caused Republicans to shift to racists dog whistles. But then when the actual vote showed their effort had failed, Republicans just declared that a victorious critic of their tax bill was a supporter of their tax bill.
So after the spectacular failure of a campaign centered on the tax bill I read (quoted by Costa in the post see below)
This is exactly what Americans for Prosperity tried in PA-18 and it was a spectacular failure. It seems as if the GOP’s insane faith in failed policies has infected their previously healthy judgment about political strategy. I sure hope it has.
Not all reporters have covered themselves with glory either. After the jump, I get back to dumping on the MSM
I stress again that mainstream reporters, who cover the debate and don’t participate in it, quote Republican lies without noting that they are false. For example
“‘He said very nice things about me. I kept saying, is he a Republican? Sounded like a Republican to me,’ Trump said.” The linked article ‘Denial ain’t just a river in Egypt’: Republicans fret over Pennsylvania setback By Michael Scherer and Sean Sullivan is actually much less bad than the one I tried to google using lamb site:www.washingtonpost.com . I note the “Republicans” in the title. Scherer and Sullivan quote only Republicans. The idea that one should cover the partisan debate by talking to members of both parties is alien to current “Ballanced” journalism. In particular, no statements from Lamb are used in the effort to understand Lamb.
The worse article is “Pennsylvania vote shows that Trumpism has its limits — even in Trump country” by the often interesting Robert Costa. This is just one of two articles written in two days which focus on Republican explanations of a stunning Democratic victory. In his own name, Costa suggests that the extremely unpopular plutocratic tax bill could be expected to help the defeated Republican candidate “Trump’s tariff plan, his raucous rally in the district over the weekend, the Republican-authored tax law, the blizzard of television ads from conservative groups linking Lamb to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), and the visit by Donald Trump Jr. to a candy-making facility on Monday — none of it was enough to secure a victory Tuesday night for Saccone …”
and again “He [Trump] had overseen the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Neil M. Gorsuch and signed the sweeping tax law that they had craved, which reassured them [Republicans] along the way.” Costa doesn’t mention that it is odd to be politically reassured by the most unpopular bill passed in decades.
and a third time “they no longer have confidence that the tax cut and the state of the economy alone can lift them to victory”. Here he conflates the undeniably good state of the economy and the generally considered to be bad tax cut.
Finally he has an amazing quote
“Everybody will run for their district. They won’t necessarily run away from Trump but emphasize the parts of the Trump presidency that have been wins for the whole party — taxes, regulatory reform, those kind of issues rather than defending every piece of it,” said former Pennsylvania congressman Bob Walker (R).
So boasting of a national tax bill is a way to “run for their district” and a party with whom a minority identifies will win by focusing on issues which unite “the whole party”. To win in a country were solid majorities have responded (for 26 years now) that the rich and corporations pay less than their fair share of taxes, the party should talk about how hit cut taxes for the rich and corporations. And the party which deregulated polluters and bankers should discuss “regulatory reform”. Note he doesn’t even dare say “deregulation”. The vagueness of the phrase shows how even Walker knows that it is better to avoid any specifics when discussing regulatory policy designed to serve concentrated interests who donate money, which is disliked by the majority.
Throughout the article, there is no hint that an bill which is opposed by a plurality of voters might be a problem for Republicans. No opponents of the bill are quoted.
Worst of all one Democrat is quoted — political genius Patrick Caddell who crafted Jimmy Carter’s image (and came “up with the slogan “malaise”). “‘It’s that old, western Pennsylvania conservative Democrat that Lamb was able to bring back,’ said Patrick Caddell, a longtime Democratic pollster. Caddell is the epitome of tone deafness. He is clueless. Also he claims that Lamb is a conservative (which is false) and suggests that Pennsylvania Democrats had trouble because they nominated doctrinaire leftists like “U.S. Sen. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, the “country’s most prominent pro-life Democrat,”” , his father and Ed Rendell (who recently had to be corrected with he falsely claimed that Lamb supports tightened legal restrictions on abortion).
This is amazing nonsense. Republicans like to claim that Democrats are all hippies, including pro-life Casey, pro-life former majority leader Harry Reid and “by the book catholic” Nancy Pelosi who personally refrained from using artificial birth control never mind abortion. Then they claim that Democrats who aren’t hippies are Republicans. It would be funny, if they didn’t control the world’s most powerful armed forces.
Not all journalists made fools of themselves. Not even all Washington Post journalists. But a clear statement of the plain facts was classified as “analysis” not reporting. Amber Phillips noted the facts in “The Fix. Analysis” . The rule that reporters are not supposed to assert that Republicans are lying implies that spin is reported as news and facts are presented as opinion.
Voctory?
I would have tried:
Lamb chops Saconne in PA-18
coupla points, not necessarily in agreement with each other:
the R’s are not insane. they have just been working for (at least) decades to see how a flagrant a lie they can get away with. answer seems to be unlimited.
the R’s are insane. I have been reading a bit about the “press” before and after the Civil War. seems people begin by rationalizing their self interest, move into stupidity by default, lying to themselves, and finally flaming insanity in what they believe.
given the Lamb results, I suspect they got away with their old lies and will get away with their new lies with the people they have already converted. They lost, narrowly, because people they have not yet reached with the lies that work for them (the new people) turned out in enough numbers to outvote, barely, the old true believers.
How many other Democrat candidates will be able to run as a better Republican than his Republican opponent? If that bodes well for the Democrats, then it is a stranger world than I have yet experienced.
CoRev
You live in a strange world of your own making… actually the making of the paid liars who know how to get your number.
Here, you completely ignore the case made by the author that Republican claims that Lamb is “really” a Republican are ludicrous.
It’s not that you disagree, it’s that you entirely fail to recognize that such a case has been made.
Whatever Lamb may turn out to be, I have it on good authority that he ran as a Democrat.
Incidentally (since i have been reading lately a lot about the Civil War and Reconstruction), the Republicans of today were called “Democrats” at that time. And the Democrats of today were called “Republicans” at that time…. if you go by policies and claimed philosophy.
typos
the missing “g’s” i blame on my aging keyboard.
the other typos i blame on my aging brain.
i am not immune to the faults i find in others. truth lies in correcting the errors, not in worshipping them.
Coberly,
What mistakes and missing g(s)?
I think the reversal is basically caused by the geographic shift of where the 2 parties are strongest, i.e. the old democrats had the solid south, and the new republicans have a semi solid south. Now one example where Trump is hewing back to the post civil war republican position is on protective tariffs, which from Lincoln on to at least McKinley were strong republican policy (inherited from the Whigs)
Don’t worry, Coberly. You’re not the only one making typos. I sure CoRev meant to say “Democratic candidate” instead of “Democrat candidate”. 🙄
Dale, your understanding is getting worse with age: ” Republican claims that Lamb is “really” a Republican are ludicrous..”
What I said was” ‘How many other Democrat candidates will be able to run as a better Republican than his Republican opponent?”
He actually ran as a better Republican than the Republican.
Yawn . . .
CoRev
well, i certainly don’t understand that.
The links are not decorative. The claim that Lamb ran as a Republican is addressed by Amber Phillips in the linked article Say it with me, Donald Trump and Paul Ryan: Connor Lamb did not run as a conservative
Assertions that he did are welcome in this thread only if they respond to her claims of fact
Lamb wants to keep the Affordable Care Act in place. His opponent, Rick Saccone, wants it repealed.
Lamb blasted the GOP tax plan as “giveaway” to the rich. His opponent supports the plan.
Lamb said that he personally opposes abortion but that he doesn’t think the right to have one should be taken away. His opponent flatly opposes abortion rights.
Lamb wants to strengthen background checks for gun sales, although he doesn’t think there should be new restrictions on guns.
Lamb supports Trump’s tariffs on steel and aluminum, even though GOP leaders including Ryan oppose them.
She didn’t mention that Lamb is very strongly pro-union.
The claim he ran as a Republican is based on two facts only
He says he will not vote for Pelosi for minority leader (joining over 60 other Democrats)
and the only new gun control measure he supports is imposing universal background checks. This is going much too far for almost all Republicans (a bill doing so has no chance in this congress).
Only fools repeat Paul Ryan’s claims without any checking.
Amen Robert.
Robert, your list of claims can be interpreted differently. Lamb’s positions even in you list are INDEPENDENT to REPUBLICAN more than Democratic:
Lamb wants to keep the Affordable Care Act in place. His opponent, Rick Saccone, wants it repealed.
– Lamb’s position is more INDEPENDENT/centrist than Democrat. His position actually supports the current REPUBLICAN legislation. As it is currently constituted the ACA is getting more palatable to most.
Lamb blasted the GOP tax plan as “giveaway” to the rich. His opponent supports the plan.
– Agreed a Democratic position.
Lamb said that he personally opposes abortion but that he doesn’t think the right to have one should be taken away. His opponent flatly opposes abortion rights.
– Another INDEPENDENT position.
Lamb wants to strengthen background checks for gun sales, although he doesn’t think there should be new restrictions on guns.
– Another independent/centrist than Democrat position and actually supports REPUBLICAN legislation.
Lamb supports Trump’s tariffs on steel and aluminum, even though GOP leaders including Ryan oppose them.
– Directly supports the REPUBLICAN President’s position.
She didn’t mention that Lamb is very strongly pro-union.
– This position was the actual vote getter in a highly unionized district. Saccone was anti-union.
It’s easy to make unsupported statements about party positions, as did your reference, when the positions are not defined. 😉
CoRev:
There is someone trying to be you and was imitating you in a couple of comments. Of course, we all know there can be only one CoRev. I threw the fake-CoRev into Spam. If anyone else runs across someone who is imitating you by using your special moniker, please let us know. Thank you.
“sigh!”
The Lamb is a repub or ran as one is just more of the repub party showing that it’s all about the win for them. Only the win. Thus, as with everything, even when they clearly lose, they say it’s a win. Because as we all know, conservatism can not lose, it can only be not conservative enough. As we have been told, the nation is a center right nation (silent majority and all that). So, Lamb won as a republican because conservatism can’t lose.
CoRev
If that’s a “republican” position, I’ll take it.
sadly, it’s not. the republicans, as far as i can tell, are still hell bent on turning American into something like pre-Revolution France where the “rich and well born” make all the rules, pay no taxes, and the people starve in the streets.
and their political strategy is to keep lying about everything, knowing that a good lie, repeated endlessly, will be believed by more people than will ever know the truth about anything.
AB (?) says i already said this, but the comment does not appear:
CoRev
If that’s a “republican” position, I’ll take it.
sadly, it’s not. the republicans, as far as i can tell, are still hell bent on turning American into something like pre-Revolution France where the “rich and well born” make all the rules, pay no taxes, and the people starve in the streets.
and their political strategy is to keep lying about everything, knowing that a good lie, repeated endlessly, will be believed by more people than will ever know the truth about anything.
Coberly, can you be any more obscure???? What do you think you were talking about with this: “If that’s a “republican” position, I’ll take it.”?
CoRev:
I understood Coberly. Maybe the fake-CoRev has a different political viewpoint more in favor with us? Seriously, there was someone imitating you CoRev.
CoRev
since Run did not delete your comment @8:02, i’ll assume you wrote it.
It seemed typical CoRev to me. You defended the “Lamb as Republican” thesis with a number of Lamb as Independent claims, and one Lamb as Trumpist in contrast to Republican claim.
This seems incoherent to me. Meanwhile I don’t have much trouble agreeing (as far as I have thought about it which is not much) with the “independent” categorization, as you might have expected from me if you had been paying attention all these years while you criticized me, not recognizing that my SS position is against both Republican and Democrat and “non partisan expert.” Sounds pretty independent to me.
Coberly:
He is the real CoRev.
Run, what???
Dale, (and or Run) would you translate to what: “If that’s a “republican” position, I’ll take it.”? referred?
If Dale is implying it was to the total comment (of mine), then we may be in agreement that Lamb ran on Republican/Independent issues. No one, certainly not me, said he was a Republican.
If not the whole comment, then clarify the obscurity of your comment. Otherwise, your comment and this response seems incoherent to me.
CoRev:
We have a spammer who masquerades as different people. He was masquerading as you twice and someone else the 3rd time.
Back to the days of trolldom….i remember cantab
This article illustrates the importance of the Lamb win in adding conflict to the Democratic party. https://www.politico.com/story/2018/03/15/conservative-democrats-midterms-conor-lamb-466544
Some key points:
“Conor Lamb’s triumph in Trump country is being heralded by conservative Democrats as a major victory in their ongoing turf battle with the far left — and an object lesson on the kind of candidates the party needs to promote and win to take the House in November.”
and the article explains the liberal view as this:
“But while liberals have praised Lamb’s win in Pennsylvania, they’ve also been quick to caution that his message shouldn’t be copied by Democrats across the House map. ”
The article concludes with:
“The scramble by both moderates and liberals to ascribe broader meaning to Lamb’s victory is just the latest volley in the ideological battle that has been raging within the party since the 2016 presidential primary. “
I think the link in the above comment was incorrect. I was reading and quoting from this link: https://www.politico.com/newsletters/huddle/2018/03/16/senate-dems-could-block-pompeo-haspel-lamb-win-exposes-dem-civil-war-gop-fears-it-fumbled-russia-report-rollout-hensarling-to-block-bank-bill-255315
which linked to the above article re: “Democrats’ civil war flares after Lamb’s upset win”, the point of my comment.
Run, you/the system’s doing a good job at IDing them.
CoRev:
There is absolutely no masquerading you . . . I could pick, pick you out of a crowd anywhere.
Here is what Martin Longman at Washington Monthly had to say about Conor’s running against a Republican: “In 2008, Obama and McCain basically tied in Greene County, and then two years ago Clinton couldn’t even 30 percent of the vote there. In 2012, Obama lost to Romney by 2,576 votes. Those basic facts should have given people more pause when they assumed that these working class whites were too racist to be reached. Conor Lamb is reaching them, and he’s not doing it by selling out blacks or Latinos or gays or other vulnerable groups. He’s doing it by creating some distance between himself and the national party, vowing not to support Pelosi for Speaker, for example. But he’s also doing it by making his top priority the opioid crisis and emphasizing infrastructure, health care, protecting Social Security and Medicaid, protecting unions, and helping people with their student debt.”
The loss of Greene and Washington counties by Clinton wiped out the advantage Dems had in Chester county. Greene and Washington County are white working class and union Labor. Saccone shot himself in the foot by taking these people for granted. United Steel Workers Union back Conor inspite of Trump’s tariffs. Backing Healthcare Dems. Protecting SS, Medicare, and Medicaid. Dems. Fighting the Opioid Crisis, Dems. Infrastructure, Dems and Trump has not offered anything meaningful yet on Infrastructure. Student Loan Debt, Dems except for Biden who is tied to banking in Delaware. While Repubs did RTW laws in Wisconsin and Michigan; Dems are backing Labor.
co rev
i say incoherent
you say incoherent
let’s call the whole thing off.
Lamb ran as a moderate Democrat. The modern Republican party is radical right-wing, not “conservative.”
As for the deeply silly assertion that positions are “independent” and not “democratic,” that’s a distinction without a difference. To be “independent” is, by definition, to adopt positions that are supported by different parties on different subjects. It is possible for some positions to be supported by most democrats and many “independents.” In reality, there really is no such thing as an “independent.” Independents vote either mostly Democratic or mostly Republican.
Joel, if you are unhappy with independent then use another word of your choosing that describes views of neither party or of many voters of both parties..
@CoRev,
This isn’t about my happiness. Indeed, this isn’t about me at all. Note that I didn’t use the personal pronoun at all in that post.
The views you ascribe to “independents” are views also shared by Democrats. Both the ACA and pro-choice are widely supported by Democrats. They may well also be supported by so-called “independents,” but there is no contradiction.
Joel, since this comment is about votes/voters’ issues, and INDEPENDENTS are the largest declared block of voters, I ask you to define a better term for this block and their views.
It was you, after all, that is making the issue. As you say, and I accepted with “of many voters of both parties.” so to correct your statement:. “The views you ascribe to “independents” are views also shared by Democrats” (and Republicans.
@CoRev,
These are your words, copied from your post above:
“Lamb said that he personally opposes abortion but that he doesn’t think the right to have one should be taken away. His opponent flatly opposes abortion rights.
– Another INDEPENDENT position.”
You didn’t say “another Democratic position shared by many independents”
Lamb supported the Democratic position on reproductive choice.
Your use of the term “independent” is meaningless. As you use it, every position is an “indepencent” position, since some independents identify with Republican positions and some with Democratic positions.
Joel, what is wrong with your comprehension? I agree with you! We both agree that some/many, especially middle ground positions’ are shared by many, BUT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT VOTERS. What is the term you wish to use?
Lamb was the better candidate as he better understood the local environment. As you noted and to which we both agree: “Lamb ran as a moderate Democrat.” I do not agree with your next sentence: “The modern Republican party is radical right-wing, not “conservative.” unless you agree that the Current Democratic leadership are radical left- wing, Socialist Bernie the most obvious example.”
MY deconstruction of the article’s list of 5 campaign issues twice included something like this comment: ” His position actually supports the current REPUBLICAN legislation.” or “Directly supports the REPUBLICAN President’s position”. That’s 3 out of 5, which you have not refuted. We both agree that 1 was more Democratic and another shared by all. The sixth was as I described what defined Saccone’s campaign failure.
The reason Republican legislation was referenced is because the Democratic voting track record against (ZERO to very very few) was few. That’s the ACTUAL indicator of the Democrat Party positions, and differs significantly from Lamb’s.
“. . . Current Democratic leadership are radical left- wing, Socialist Bernie the most obvious example.”
LOL! What’s wront with your comprehension?
Your ignorance betrays you again. “Socialist” Bernie Sanders is a member of the Democratic leadership? The sentence is self-discrediting. Bernie was not a member of the Democratic party before he ran in the primaries. He is not a leader in the Democratic party now. I get why members of the Trumpenproletariat want to tie him to the Democratic party leadership, but the facts simply don’t support them.
And this explains why you cannot see that Lamb ran as a Democrat (support for unions, Social Security, Medicare, reproductive choice, the ACA). You actually don’t know anything about the Democratic Party or its positions. Just like you don’t know anything about climate science.
Joel, bwo, ha, ha ha!