Red Mosquito

McParadigm wrote:It’s been pretty amazing this morning to watch conservative after conservative not equate last nights loss with their own choices and actions as a party. It’s all “fundraising and get out the vote“ talk.

McParadigm wrote:The level of “pretty bad” here is impressive. A 20 point shift in a coal country district where the organization spent like maniacs and the president personally campaigned. They can’t afford to spend like this in 50 races at once, and there are nearly 100 races that were considered to be in more danger than this one.

McParadigm wrote:the messaging fell flat.

One special election is not enough to draw midterm conclusions from, but when it fits so clearly into an existing pattern, it’s safe to say something’s going on. Counting Tuesday’s result, Democratic candidates in federal special elections have now outperformed the normal partisan leans of their state or district by an average of 17 percentage points. In recent midterm election cycles, that number has tracked closely with the eventual national popular vote for the U.S. House.

The big-picture takeaway is this: If Democrats can win districts like Pennsylvania 18, they won’t need to stretch and scrape together a House majority. According to FiveThirtyEight’s partisan lean measure, 118 Republican-held districts nationwide are less red than the Pennsylvania 18th is. Of course, the entire country is unlikely to shift 22 points to the left in November the way the 18th did — and the country may not even shift the full 17 points implied by the aggregate of special-election results — but Republicans should still be very worried.

bune wrote:The obvious response is to ban voting.

McParadigm wrote:

bune wrote:The obvious response is to ban voting.

The modern GOP approach has been to gift to donors, sell to the base, flirt with moderates, and suppress the rest.

Suppression is very likely to resurface in the coming months.

McParadigm wrote:The level of “pretty bad” here is impressive. A 20 point shift in a coal country district where the organization spent like maniacs and the president personally campaigned. They can’t afford to spend like this in 50 races at once, and there are nearly 100 races that were considered to be in more danger than this one.

Bi_3 wrote:

McParadigm wrote:The level of “pretty bad” here is impressive. A 20 point shift in a coal country district where the organization spent like maniacs and the president personally campaigned. They can’t afford to spend like this in 50 races at once, and there are nearly 100 races that were considered to be in more danger than this one.

BUT, Lamb wasn't exactly running on the mainstream Dem platform. Former soldier, doesn't hate white people, anti-Pelosi, supporting miners... these are not exactly things that would fly in most blue states. You can't tie his performance to his party affiliation.

durdencommatyler wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

McParadigm wrote:The level of “pretty bad” here is impressive. A 20 point shift in a coal country district where the organization spent like maniacs and the president personally campaigned. They can’t afford to spend like this in 50 races at once, and there are nearly 100 races that were considered to be in more danger than this one.

BUT, Lamb wasn't exactly running on the mainstream Dem platform. Former soldier, doesn't hate white people, anti-Pelosi, supporting miners... these are not exactly things that would fly in most blue states. You can't tie his performance to his party affiliation.

But...

1. For universal health care
2. Against Trump’s tax cut
3. For expanded background checks
4. For stronger unions
5. Against cuts to Social Security
6. For a woman’s right to choose
7. For medical marijuana

durdencommatyler wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

McParadigm wrote:The level of “pretty bad” here is impressive. A 20 point shift in a coal country district where the organization spent like maniacs and the president personally campaigned. They can’t afford to spend like this in 50 races at once, and there are nearly 100 races that were considered to be in more danger than this one.

BUT, Lamb wasn't exactly running on the mainstream Dem platform. Former soldier, doesn't hate white people, anti-Pelosi, supporting miners... these are not exactly things that would fly in most blue states. You can't tie his performance to his party affiliation.

But...

1. For universal health care
2. Against Trump’s tax cut
3. For expanded background checks
4. For stronger unions
5. Against cuts to Social Security
6. For a woman’s right to choose
7. For medical marijuana

elliseamos wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

McParadigm wrote:The level of “pretty bad” here is impressive. A 20 point shift in a coal country district where the organization spent like maniacs and the president personally campaigned. They can’t afford to spend like this in 50 races at once, and there are nearly 100 races that were considered to be in more danger than this one.

BUT, Lamb wasn't exactly running on the mainstream Dem platform. Former soldier, doesn't hate white people, anti-Pelosi, supporting miners... these are not exactly things that would fly in most blue states. You can't tie his performance to his party affiliation.

But...

1. For universal health care
2. Against Trump’s tax cut
3. For expanded background checks
4. For stronger unions
5. Against cuts to Social Security
6. For a woman’s right to choose
7. For medical marijuana

I'm confused, Bi, why would "former soldier" equate to non-dem? Also, I think many in the party are anti-Pelosi. And, I'd be curious how many "blue states" are mining states anyway. Overall, just curious how much of your post was kidding.

B wrote:I thought Democrats hated our soldiers.