Democrats dissect Lamb's win with an eye to November's races
U.S. Democratic congressional candidate Conor Lamb is greeted by supporters at an election night rally
in Pennsylvania’s 18th U.S. Congressional District special election against Republican candidate and state Rep
. Rick Saccone, in Canonsburg, Pa., March 13, 2018. (Photo: Brendan McDermid/Reuters)
With Democrat Conor Lamb holding on to a margin of a few hundred votes in Tuesday’s special election to fill a Pennsylvania House seat, strategists from both parties were frantically seeking lessons in the outcome that will help them in the midterms this fall.
What combination of Lamb’s personal qualities, policy positions, grassroots organizing, labor-union support and disaffection with Donald Trump led to the apparent victory by the 33-year-old first-time candidate over Republican state representative Rick Saccone in an overwhelmingly Republican district on the West Virginia border?
Tags
Who is online
105 visitors
The victory is the first by a Democratic special election candidate in a hotly contested Republican-held district since Trump won office, after a string of narrow defeats in which Democrats substantially outperformed historical patterns in their districts.
Trump won the district by a nearly 20-point margin, and both he and Vice President Pence had campaigned for Saccone. Democrats gleefully suggested that the rally Trump hosted on Saturday, where he gave a meandering speech that touched on an array of inflammatory topics, had backfired.
At this point, Trump's supporting a candidate in districts such as this, will hurt Republican chances more than help them-- all to to Trump's increasing unpopularity....
Conor Lamb essentially ran as a Republican. He is young, dynamic, pro-gun, pro-life and most important of all his opponent was "right to work" which gave Conor the Union backing. Conor said he would vote against Nancy Pelosi and confined the debate to local issues. He didn't have to win a primary, where the DNC would have put a hard left candidate against him, as they are doing. With all of that he barely won. I think democrats have a lot to think about
Well, one of the things they should be thinking about is running Congressional candidates who represent the voters of the district they are running in!
In many cases candidates of both parties are stuck in one particular ideology or another ...for wahtever reason...and therefore aren't in tune with the folks in their district.
(In addition, sometimes the sentiment of their voters changes over time....its important to be aware of that).
That would be the smart thing to do, but if you look at what they did in the Texas primaries - they kept backing the most hard left candidates they could find
And similarly, look what the Repblicans did in Alabama (when they backed Roy Moore-- with disastrous results).
Conor Lamb isn't pro-life, He supports a woman's right to choose.
Why do you think that you get to make the intimate medical decisions of others? Can others make your medical decisions or is this a one way street because your a white republican man?
A better question is can a liberal go five minutes without playing identity politics and presuming things about people because of their race and gender.
What are these identity politics, that you seem to have a problem with? Do you have a problem with accepting that there is still racism and gender inequalities in American, or do you want those ideas to remain because they benefit you?
What are you afraid that might happen if those inequalities would be addressed by policies? Do you need someone to feel superior to?
Can you? That is like the pot calling the kettle back.
Really, Jethro? Thinking a comment through before you post is always a good idea.
Oh sure, there's still gender and race inequalities. And the left does everything it can to make sure they are kept alive. Without that animosity they'd actually have to come up with real ideas.
You might save that advice for Hillary Clinton. Her identity politics has gotten so toxic even the Dems don't want anything to do with her.
Why would the supposed left try to keep them alive instead of solving the problem by guaranteeing that everyone has equal rights? Progressives support equal rights. It is conservatives and Republicans that oppose equal rights for anyone but wealthy WASP males?
You have a problem with the fact that others are supporting equal rights for people of different creed, races, woman, and LGBT. Do you feel that when others have equal rights that rights have been taken away from you and other white conservatives?
Do you look under your bed and in the closet for either Hillary or Muslims before you close your eyes?
What are Hillary's identity policies that you have such a problem with?
Damn right, I've been for full and equal rights my whole life, watched republicans make sure the Equal Rights Amendment never got passed. When republicans understand they aren't the only ones entitled to that, we will stfu. Until then you will hear about it. And again. And again. And again. Don't like it? Do something to fix it. Or admit you don't want to.
Lamb pro life? Yes, indeed he is. That is his own personal conviction and for that I applaud him.
However, Lamb is also of the conviction that his beliefs are his own and he has neither the right or the authority to force his beliefs on others. In other words, he is a true American and believes in freedom, very much unlike everybody on the right wing conservative side of the political spectrum.
Which of course that, he is anti-abortion and also pro-choice. There are many of us.
Exactly. Those decisions are not mine or yours and sure as hell not the government's.
He is also against the Trump Tax cuts and the Tariffs. The closer you look at him, the much further away from Conservatives he is, so I think it is very disingenuous, to say the least, for Republicans to say he won because he ran as a Republican (he certainly did not!) and outright laughable for Trump to claim (as he did today) that he won because he embraced Trump! Now THAT is funny!
He will be a reliable Democratic vote in the House.
Liberals aren't for equal rights. They are for a permanent underclass that has kids trapped in failing schools run by teachers unions, crime ridden streets where cops are jailed for trying to enforce the law and open borders where deaths of Americans are looked on a acceptable collateral damage.
I hope I never have the left try to protect my rights. With friends like those you don't need enemies.
You, my friend, have the idea of classes exactly backward when talking about liberals and conservatives. It is sad that you have been so mis-informed or that you are getting paid to say such garbage and have not actually thought for yourself what the words you are saying really mean. Think! Actually think! Free your mind!
Someone watches way too much Fox News.
Someone only see's "D"s and "R"s !
Things are just fucked up........and have been fucked up for quite some time now.....Period !
Time to start voting, not because of the "D" or the "R" label after someone's name, but for the person !
Lamb actually ran on most things Trump has been trying to accomplish. Not a big win for what a "D" stands for now....is it.
The "Left" are a bunch of DYMO® LabelWriter® 4XL Wide Format Label makers
You might have pulled that out of your ass, but you are not talking about liberals, not this liberal and not any liberal I know. It's almost funny how conservatives, almost to a person, project their foibles and activities outward, usually on to liberals or democrats. Is is conscious or unconscious, that is the question.
He may be pro-life but he is still pro-choice. Ones personal belief in abortion is not the same as forcing those beliefs on everyone else.
With friends like you, who needs enemas?
Happy to oblige
Today's so-called progressives are really just a range of marxist fascists to communists who oppose individualism and the pursuit of happiness; instead they keep trying to enslave everyone to statist collectivism.
When government seizes the fruit of the labor of it's citizens, we have surrendered our liberties
When government determines how much of your income you are allowed to keep, we have surrendered our liberties
When government states that it is the arbiter of when and where you should grow (Wickard v Filburn), we have surrendered our liberties
When government states it determines the wage agreements between employer and employee, we have surrendered our liberties
When government determines how and where we educate our children, we surrender our liberties
When government determines that we must purchase health insurance with a threat of tax penalties whether we use health care services or not-we have surrendered our liberties
When government forces us to participate in a retirement ponzi scheme-we have surrendered our liberties
When government forces us to participate in old age government run health care-we have surrendered our liberties
When doctors are forced by the Government to provide free services, we have surrendered our liberties
When government tries to control the environment, we have surrendered our liberties
When government forces us to participate in a marxist redistribution of wealth-we have surrendered our liberties
When Govt controls the air waves, we have surrendered our liberties
When Govt determines what vehicles we can purchase, how they must be equipped, and how they must perform, we have lost our liberties
When Govt determines what foods or beverages are acceptable, we have lost our liberties
When Govt determines what substances you can ingest, smoke, or otherwise assimilate into your body, we have lost our liberties
I can go on endlessly on how this totalitarian government has incrementally reduced our natural rights until they are almost nonexistent.
You still have not named a single right that the left have taken away.
I was going to rebut line by line, but it all just a bunch of far right ideology with no basis in reality.
The entire healthcare rambling, on multiple rants, shows a total lack of understanding of the subject, from economics (WE ALL PAY FOR PEOPLE WHO DON'T CARRY HEALTH INSURANCE), to delivery of services (have you ever seen or been part of a national healthcare system? Have you even studied them? They deliver care to all and it costs a fraction). Why should you have the 'freedom' to make me pay more for my care (as a RESPONSIBLE CITIZEN) so you can go uncovered until your heart attack or car accident, when you go on the insurance dole? And now republicans are advocating going backward to useless insurance policies that cover nothing,you pay for them and when you need them, they deny. Remember those days? And what are you rambling about doctors being forced to provide 'free services'? You really don't know what you are talking about, you are regurgitating bs talking points.
I gave you a laundry list of them.
It begins with losing our individual sovereignty with the 16th amendment which changed us from free citizens to subjects and gave control over the fruit of our labor or intellectual creativity to the government.
The right to choose which if any medical choices for myself without coercion from government
The right to choose who I sell products and/or services to
The right to keep and bear arms as the founders guaranteed us without infringement from the State
When government dictates and even criminalizes what you ingest in your body, you have lost the right to control over your own body.
When government seizes your property for the redistribution to others you have lost your property rights the founders established as inviolate.
It's easy to go on at length about our Marxist Fascist totalitarian government.
DELETED: (Personal Insult) (A. Mac)
1. I'm not a Republican, I'm a minarchist Christian libertarian
2. Doctors are required to provide FREE preventative care services under Obamacare. I've been a licensed insurance agent providing healthcare coverage to Americans for nearly 40 years so I know something about the subject.
3. There is NO right to collectivist healthcare. That is totalitarianism
You gave me nothing but incoherent rambling and ranting and babbling.
Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black
"It was the desire to give the people of America greater protection against the powerful Federal Government than the English had had against their Government that caused the Framers to put these freedoms of expression, again in the words of Madison, beyond the reach of this Government."
"One Man's Stand For Freedom" - Mr. Justice Black and the Bill of Rights - Hugo LaFayette Black: A collection of his Supreme Court opinions - Published 1963 by Alfred A. Knopf, Inc.
"The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government." -- The Supreme Court of the United States, in U.S. v. Cruikshank 1876
Justice Robert Jackson’s opinion in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)
"The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but only to have the law of nature for his rule.
In the state of nature men may, as the patriarchs did, employ hired servants for the defence of their lives, liberties, and property; and they should pay them reasonable wages. Government was instituted for the purposes of common defence, and those who hold the reins of government have an equitable, natural right to an honorable support from the same principle that " the laborer is worthy of his hire." But then the same community which they serve ought to be the assessors of their pay. Governors have no right to seek and take what they please; by this, instead of being content with the station assigned them, that of honorable servants of the society, they would soon become absolute masters, despots, and tyrants. Hence, as a private man has a right to say what wages he will give in his private affairs, so has a community to determine what they will give and grant of their substance for the administration of public affairs. And, in both cases, more are ready to offer their service at the proposed and stipulated price than are able and willing to perform their duty.
In short, it is the greatest absurdity to suppose it in the power of one, or any number of men, at the entering into society, to renounce their essential natural rights, or the means of preserving those rights; when the grand end of civil government, from the very nature of its institution, is for the support, protection, and defence of those very rights; the principal of which, as is before observed, are Life, Liberty, and Property. If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave."
Samuel Adams The Natural Rights of the Colonists as Men, The Report of the Committee of Correspondence to the Boston Town Meeting, Nov. 20, 1772
Looking in the mirror there preacher?
Totalitarianism is the absence of rights - the domination of the public by a tiny minority in total control. The right to healthcare would not exist under totalitarianism.
For reference :
John Locke, whose writings had direct impact in the framing both of the Declaration of Independence and the U. S. Constitution, succinctly declared that “the preservation of property [is] the reason for which men enter into society” and that “government . . . can never have a power to take to themselves the whole or any part of the subject’s property without their own consent, for this would be in effect to leave them no property at all”; Whereas, the right to hold, possess, and use one’s own private property was also recognized by our Framers and in our founding government documents as one of the foremost of our inalienable, inviolable, God-given rights:
Samuel Adams declared that our inalienable rights included “first, a right to life; secondly, to liberty; thirdly, to property – together with the right to support and defend them”
John Adams declared that “The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the law of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence” and that “Property is surely a right of mankind as really as liberty”
John Jay, original Chief Justice of the U. S. Supreme Court and an author of the Federalist Papers declared that “It is the undoubted right and unalienable privilege of a [citizen] not to be divested or interrupted in the innocent use of . . . property. . . . This is the Cornerstone of every free Constitution”
thanks for confirming that obamacare is part of totalitarianism
Nope, I'm not the one who despises individual liberty and promotes enslavement to the state. That's you leftists
So how do you feel about the EMTALA bill Ronald Reagan signed back in the 1980's that's still in force today? The Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act ( EMTALA ) is a federal law that requires anyone coming to an emergency department to be stabilized and treated, regardless of their insurance status or ability to pay, but since its enactment in 1986 has remained an unfunded mandate. We've already been paying tax dollars to care for those without insurance, the ACA was an attempt to get more people insured and off of using the EMTALA which has been costing us billions, not only in government reimbursements, but in increased physician costs due to what they call "uncompensated care or bad debt care".
"In 2000, emergency physicians reported that 61% of their bad debt was related to EMTALA mandated care. For 27.7% of emergency physicians, EMTALA was the only source of bad debt. In utilizing the data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey from 1996-1998, it was determined that the percentage of total charges paid by Medicaid, Medicare, and the uninsured remained constant, while the mean reimbursement for privately insured patients declined from 77.7% to 65.7%. 3 The MEPS data would suggest that the contribution of the commercial insurance companies to bad debt is increasing and that emergency physicians are less able to cost shift to offset the uncompensated care burden."
"Federal legislation to guarantee access to emergency medical care is commendable, but the substantial impact of uncompensated care needs to be considered as well. Realistic considerations and economic evaluation of the costs of providing emergency care is required to properly approach a solution to this problem. Understanding the economics and proposing a properly funded program of basic health care that includes unobstructed access to emergency care for financially challenged patients is a reasonable start."
This is why we need a universal healthcare option that insures everyone for the minimum of care and then people can buy individual supplemental plans for expanded care similar to what we already have with Medicare and Medicare supplement plans.
Why do you keep rambling? I don't give a shit what you have to say.
No value [SP]
The only way to get smarter - to advance - is to read what is actually written. If one reads something and then inserts whatever one wishes was written, all that will result is self-inflicted confirmation bias. One will simply circle about in one's belief - learning ceases.
I bet you hear nothing but crickets from livefreeordie or more bible humping babbling nonsense.
I opposed that Bill as an unconstitutional extension of communist redistribution of wealth programs.
I have also called for the repeal of Medicare and Medicaid since they were passed in 1965. I refused to sign up for Medicare when I turned 65
well you are wrong. see my response. 1.1.48
Really? then why do you continue to respond
Here's the last thing I have to say to you - (No Value SP)
Off Topic {SP}
"Observe that all legitimate rights have one thing in common: they are rights to action, not to rewards from other people. The American rights impose no obligations on other people, merely the negative obligation to leave you alone. The system guarantees you the chance to work for what you want — not to be given it without effort by somebody else. The right to life, e.g., does not mean that your neighbors have to feed and clothe you; it means you have the right to earn your food and clothes yourself, if necessary by a hard struggle, and that no one can forcibly stop your struggle for these things or steal them from you if and when you have achieved them. In other words: you have the right to act, and to keep the results of your actions, the products you make, to keep them or to trade them with others, if you wish. But you have no right to the actions or products of others, except on terms to which they voluntarily agree."
-- Leonard Peikoff, in "Health Care is Not a Right"
The fact is very few Americans would want to live in your "minarchist" America where the idea of community is anathema, where the only roads are toll roads, where only a select few ever get to use a hospital because spreading the cost for all has made the cost of health coverage for the few monumentally expensive, where houses burn because they didn't pay for the private fire department and no police respond when your house gets burgled because you didn't keep up on your payments to the private police department, and having to worry about our neighbor countries invading and annexing our cities and States because someone didn't keep up on their private military payments. While I agree healthcare is not a "human right", it is a human need and if we want to live as a functional society without people dying and being left on the sides of the road for the vultures, we have to have some socialist programs where we all pitch in for the common welfare of the populace.
We have a mix of socialism and capitalism which isn't perfect, but it's a hell of a lot better than most other forms of government so far and made us the envy of the world. Sure, you could fix the immigration problem of so many people wanting to come here if America shoots itself in the foot and becomes nothing but another white nationalist disaster like Russia, but is that really what we want? Russia has less than one third our number of illegal immigrants because you have to be either crazy or desperate with no better options to move there.
What does this have to do with anything we are discussing?
"On abortion, Lamb is a far cry from moderate, by his own admission," the National Review's Alexandra DeSanctis wrote. "Lamb has invoked the common 'personally opposed to abortion' line, which has given him a reputation as occupying a reasonable middle ground on the issue. But in practice, his position is just as extreme as that of the most pro-abortion members of his party."
In other words he just ran as "pro-life" and now he will pivot over to the pro-abortion side.
You cannot be both a fascist and a communist. There is no point to continue to read this idiocy.
There is no pro-abortion side. Planned Parenthood is not pro-abortion. You cannot accept that women have the right to make the decision to carry a pregnancy to term, so you must create this strawman of pro-abortion instead of being pro-choice.
Actually you're just another right wing theocrat who thinks he deserves special rights and wants to use the state to enforce the sharia laws of his cult. You're an enemy of liberty.
I agree, you would be wasting your time. Some have their own definitions for common labels and will stubbornly reject all information to the contrary.
Was anyone else amused when he cited the Constitution and then denied the very same constitution when he states that he is a minarchist? LiveFree' is the textbook Christian dominionist.
You only have drive-by personal attacks.
There is a word for that behavior (and it is not 'clever').
Sorry for your reading comprehension skills. I said it's made up of both of those elements, not that they are the same.
And an even better question is-- can a Republican?
(There are many in both parties who pander to various "identities"...the only difference is when their politicians pander to different groups-- the Republicans and the Democrats pander to different groups when they play identity politics!)
The word "win" should really be in quotations along with words "presumptuous" and "undeclared". Wake me when the results are actually official instead of wishful thinking.
True.
In a sense he hasn't won yet-- neither candidate has. And won't-- until its official.
However in another sense the Democrats have indeed won here-- even if Saccone is eventually tbe one who gets ot be elected to the office.
Why? because this has been a solidly Republican district-- not long ago the Republicans had a 20% point edge here!
So since whatever the exact vote total turns out to be-- a Democrat has succeeded in turning around a traditional 20 piont lead-- and that's a big win psychologically. It may well be a harbinger of things to come in the upcoming Congressional elections.
I don't doubt that the Dems have a good shot at taking the House. The midterms in 94 and 2010 were pretty hard on the Dems at the time. The only question really is will these new House members stick to their campaign rhetoric or will the cave in to Pelosi and the rest of the leadership. It could be a short term thing if the voters feel cheated.
And similarly-- will the Republicans in the House stick to their campaign rhetoric-- or will they cave to Trump?
Most Republicans run with Trump on the issues. There may be a few exceptions but most of the anti Trump GOP are resigning or being primaried.
All of your responses seemed "canned" or "pre-written"? Why is that? Are you choosing them off from some sort of list?
Straight from Putin approved Russian propaganda research to Republicans mouths.
Why don't you supply ALL of us with that list you have?
You CAN do that, right, and aren't just bullshitting us?
Not a single link to the GOP.
Figured as much.
Oh, so it only happened if the GOP party platform linked the Russian propaganda stories? You know as well as I do that the Facebook stories created in Russian propaganda mills were repeated and shared among GOP members daily during the campaign and they continue to parrot RT and Sputnik as do all the right wing media pundits. Stop being dishonest in your attempts to deflect.
Just like the stories were linked to Sanders, the Green Party, and Democrats?
They are all straight out of the playbook of Trump TV (AKA "Fox News").
There is a lot more to it than Trump.
Lamb is reportedly a center-right normal human, as opposed to a raving leftist Sanders-style nutter.
True.
But there are two ways to interpret the resilts:
One is that it was a victory for a politicalparty (the Dems) The other way ios to see it as a victrativst for centrists as opposed to left-wingers).
IMO, the significance of this election (at least in terms showing a trend related to the next Congressional election) is not hat a more conservative Democrat won-- but rather that an actual Democrat won.
It other words, a Democratic win in a traditionally Republican district is an indicator of probable furture wins for the Democratic Party-- not that it indicates a trend towards a win for a particular ideology (more conservative, or at least more centrist rather than liberal).
If the Dems win future control of the House, regardless of whether or not they move closer to the political center than they are now-- it will represent a considerable political shift for the country.
I don't think they can win control of the House unless they move closer to the center. Extremists forget that elections are won in the middle.
What part of the progressive platform does Conor Lamb not support because he looks reasonably progressive to me, unless don't understand Bernie Sanders ideas because you are too busy setting your hair on fire?
Along with his military service and support for gun rights, Mr. Lamb’s opposition to Ms. Pelosi, which he highlighted in a TV ad , helped him win over some of the voters who were raised Democrats but have drifted to the Republican Party in this heavily unionized district....
Mr. Lamb ran a fairly cautious campaign, calling for more cooperation in Washington and largely keeping national Democrats, other than former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., out of the district.
Less than a decade removed from law school, Mr. Lamb, a Marine prosecutor turned assistant United States attorney, said he ran because he wanted to show his party he could compete in working-class white districts and help reconnect Democrats with organized labor.
Nany Pelosi isn't a progressive, except on social policies. She is a party democrat just like Harry Reid. That is why the progressives do not support her and Hillary.
Progressives support military service and do not support the repeal of the 2nd Amendment, despite the claims of Fox News and the conservative echo chamber media.
Maybe he can front your beloved third party.
Any viable, non extremist third party would be an improvement over a 2 party system. Monopolies don't tend to worry about the interests of their consumers because they don't have to.
As opposed to being a partisian?
Why? You don't even know what their proposals are.
epistte,
Can you find what "progressives" stand for? I'm talking about an actual platform. (btw, I am not being a wise guy here).
I am not a partisan. I am an independent. We are an issue by issue kind of people and by definition would not have a platform, since that would make us a party and not independents. There are those who want a moderate party, and I support that, since right now we have 2 monopolies.
Without something similar to a platform, how would anyone, including other moderates, know whether or not they wanted to vote for your candidates?
Very true. Jan. 2007, Pelosi sworn in as the new Speaker of the House. In her first news conference she said, "All investigations are off the table." This was a bad mistake for the American people and an even worse mistake for combating corruption and the US government's willingness to wage war for not the best of reasons.
How about this? What do progressives stand for? That could be an interesting topic with a myriad of avenues and opinions. Some of which, I am sure, would not be grounded in fact.
What do conservatives stand for? There must be more to it than fetus, gun, bible and wealth worship, isn't there? I am referring to 'modern day' so called conservatives. The real conservatives, W.F. Buckley, Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon and others are all dead and buried. I suspect they would not approve of this new crop of so called conservatives. This is my opinion of course.
I'd default to the common ideas from the platforms of Bernie Sanders and the Green Party.
I don't think there is any more of a way to answer that then there is any way to say what do independents stand for. We are a collection of people who have many things in common, but don't agree on everything. For instance I consider myself to be a proud progressive, but am pro-death penalty in extreme cases, such as the school shooting in Florida, rape/murder of a child with overwhelming evidence, same with the murder of a law enforcement officer. Being pro-death penalty under any circumstances is horrible to most progressives.
Nancy, Hillary, Harry Reid, and other partisan Democrats are center-right corporate stooges and foreign policy hawks who merely have different corporate puppetmasters than the Republicans.The only thing that they differ from the GOP is slightly left on social policy.
I oppose the death penalty in all situations. Life without the possibility parole is the alternative to giving the power to execute in revenge. The death penalty is flawed, not equally applied and cannot undo an execution when someone is found innocent later. It is an emotional reaction to a violent crime that must be opposed.
Instead of just warehousing people and permitting their use as slave labor, we need to place far for emphasis on rehabilitation when they successfully reenter society. The western European countries and Canada are much better at this and we need to catch up.
Yet I still count you as a Progressive and I am sure that by reading my writing you do the same of me.
As a long time supporter of Buckley and Reagan, I can say we are NOT all dead and buried, and no, we do not approve.
The problem is that we've replaced intelligent conservatives and liberals (think Lloyd Bentsen) with those who simply pander to the angry and emotional.
Let's look, shall we?:
Lamb: Center-right, normal human, Bill Clinton/Barack Obama style Democrat willing to work with people.
Leftists: Nonsensical, emotional, raving nutters who claim public roads = socialism and think they don't win elections because they're not crazy left enough.
Serious question...why do you consider yourself to be a proud progressive? What about their ideology resonates with you?
For my part, I consider myself a moderate conservative. But I'm pro gay marriage, pro legal pot, pro defense spending cuts and pro infrastructure spending. I don't think anybody who actually thinks for themselves is going to align completely with a political label.
Thank you. We are in agreement.
Progressives support military service and do not support the repeal of the 2nd Amendment.
Are you saying, them, that Pe;osi supports repeal of the 2nd Amendment?
I'd default to the common ideas from the platforms of Bernie Sanders and the Green Party.
By that definition, then, Hillary would not be considered a Progressive. (Although many Democrats I know would say she is).
I would caution the Dems from attempting to utilize a cookie cutter type format for their candidates. Mr. Lamb won because he was right for his particular district, this may be the tact they want to concentrate on.
Folks are looking for people to represent their interests, not those of any particular party or special interest group, my thought at any rate.
Never believe a candidates campaign promises. This guy will be voting like Nancy ninety percent of the time right along with all the other Dems.
That is why the mostly conservative voters of Pennsylvania's 18th District elected a Democrat to resist the damn gop in Congress...
It's called a balance or check on the power. Just like the Founding Fathers wanted Congress to be. Even though right now Congressional leadership seems to be lacking a spine.
I fully expect him to switch parties at some point.
A truer statement has never been made
He'll get sucked into the blackhole which is Pelosi and Schumer.
If he doesn't....I'll be IMPRESSED !
I think that will depend upon which district he will end up in after the re-districting goes into effect. (The current district, PA-18. will no longer exist)/
I could be wrong bu I think he will remain a Democrat....
Absolutely right! The Democrats must pick candidates that fit the districts that they are running in. No one type of candidate will work in all districts. There is not a generic Democrat, in spite of what the GOP likes to make out. They like to make out all Democrats as one plastic, run off at a factory, type of person when that is just plain bullshit and Democrats have to show the voters that it is bullshit too.
Well, right now the Dems are being led by the hardliners of the far left. As a party they have forgotten what they stand for, and that is why they continue to lose elections. I see no indications that this problem will be fixed by the coming midterms, and don't expect to see Democrats make any substantial gains in the Congressional races, especially in the all important Senate.
What do the democrats stand for? (That they have forgotten...but you haven't?)
Not even the NRA?
You know, that's one I really do not get. Their membership is somewhere around 4-5 million souls (a bit over 1 % of the population) yet somehow they hold sway over Congress and manage to befog the minds of many.
Hate to show my cynical side, but could it have something to do with money?