Conor Lamb vs. Rick Saccone
This PA (18) district went for Trump by 20% points.
Lamb and Saccone ended in a near tie this week and some Democrats are celebrating while some Republicans are wringing their hands with worry. Is this the blue wave?
Lamb, is this analysis, begins at 40% support, and Saccone at 60%.
This was a mid-term chronologically, — and they traditionally run against the incumbent president by 3 percentage points. This is a reliable event, and reflects the American public’s desire to limit the power of the president, no matter who he is.
This puts Lamb at 43% and Saccone at 57%.
Lamb is a conservative Democrat, he is for 2nd amendment gun rights, and against abortion — and he publicized these differences. I think this blunts a big part of Trump’s differential with Democrats and represents 2% more of the electorate, a piece of the Independent vote that is socially liberal but respects life after 20 weeks, and understands the need for gun rights. Christians mostly. This is not a big slice of the electorate, but a very politically aware slice. This moves Lamb to 45% and Saccone to 55%.
Saccone pushed right to work in a union heavy district, and this was very, very stupid.
I think this was another 3%, in fact, it’s one of the only issue’s that showed up in exit polling. Voters heard Trump say “Jobs, Jobs, Jobs” and the return of union manufacturing and industry, and they heard Saccone say “Right to Work” and they immediately thought, “Oh, he’s one of the wrong Republicans.”
This moves Lamb up to 48% and Saccone down to 52%.
Lamb is young, energetic and attractive. Saccone is old, tired looking, and not attractive.
I don’t actually vote on things like this, but 2% of the electorate traditionally does, and Lamb got these voters, this being one of the few non-issue items that also showed up in exit polling. This puts Lamb at 50% and Saccone at 50%. Which is where they ended up.
I put the money down as an equal effect because they both spent plenty of it.
Lamb got away with running as a Democrat while pretending to be a Republican because every liberal political campaign voice in America was quiet — while this PA campaign ran — because they were not running and had no need to broadcast a message. This will not be true during the full mid-terms, and will put a lot of Democrats who think they are safe now, in some jeopardy they don’t see yet — if the liberal wing of the party grabs the issue baton — and batters common sense America with it again.
Lamb understood the negative power of this liberal agenda — even in a special election — and went out of his way to distance himself from Nancy Pelosi. Lots of D candidates could do this also in the mid-terms, but that would be the end of Pelosi of course. It’s difficult to imagine a whole slate of Democratic candidates running against their party’s leadership and that working. Pelosi is at least as bad for a candidate as Trump is — by Lamb’s calculation’s and statements — and I think he’s correct.
This COULD be a referendum on Trump to some degree as well, but judging by the trends listed above, it isn’t a sure sign of a giant blue wave, just a little blue wave of worry for Republicans. The only warning sign I see, is that the Democrats have figured a winning algorithm, which is — to run as Republicans.
Don’t laugh, out of 200 or so possible new Democratic candidates, Pelosi has recruited 50% of them — that’s 100 candidates — from former military, CIA and defense backgrounds.
Pelosi isn’t going to steer the party toward the liberals like everyone thinks, she’s steering it as hard RIGHT as she can pull the wheel. Imagine a blue wave, Democrats rejoicing all over the country as they take back the House — then the reality sets in — when the whips get to work, BECAUSE MOST of these new Congress men and women are pro gun, anti-abortion, and conservative fiscally.
It will still be a Democratic victory in that case, but it won’t be Pelosi’s liberal agenda/party anymore and she will not win the Speaker’s election.