Too Late To Start Thinking About 2018?

[LordMortis]

Linda Belcher?

So Louise is the daughter of a Congressman?

I hope all of this happening is indicative of a greater truth. I have my doubts but it's nice to dream a little optimism coming out of these last five or seven years.

[El Guapo]

Democrats flip another district in a Kentucky special election:

Early Tuesday evening, Democrat Linda Belcher was pronounced the winner of the special election in Kentucky’s House District 49, a seat that Donald Trump carried by a 72-23 margin in 2016 and that went 66-33 for Mitt Romney in 2012.

Ho-Lee Sheee-t.

I read a compelling argument that the dramatic swings in state-level special elections (relative to the significant but somewhat less dramatic swings in federal special elections) is probably the result of an enthusiasm gap. No one turns out to vote for state-level special elections generally, so a lot of them are driven by who can get their committed supporters to the polls. Democratic voters are super motivated right now to vote, hence the swings. In federal special elections there's more public awareness of them, more less motivated people vote, so the advantage of an enthused base (while still important) is somewhat less important. Hence results like the Ossoff GA special election.

Which is just to say that Democrats will have a turnout / enthusiasm advantage in the 2018 congressional elections, but it's not likely to be as decisive as it's been in a lot of state special elections.

[Defiant]

[El Guapo]

[El Guapo]

Surprised that no one has posted this yet, but Thad Cochran (R-MS) is resigning from his Senate seat due to poor health. The (GOP, of course) governor will appoint a temporary replacement, and then there will be a special election to fill the seat (through 2020) in November. It's a non-partisan jungle primary, and if no one gets a majority of the vote, then the top two vote getters (regardless of party) advance to the run-off.

Of course Republicans should be a strong favorite to keep the seat, but Mississippi is actually substantially less Republican than Alabama (Trump won Alabama by 28 and Mississippi by *only* 18), and given the political atmosphere these days...who knows for sure. Also 538 has a brief rundown of how this could potentially go wrong for Republicans. One tantalizing possibility is that there is a crazy tea partier who could potentially screw this up for Republicans if he becomes the candidate (though at least he doesn't have credible child molester allegations against him at the moment).

[Holman]

Mississippi is an interesting case.

tl;dr:
MS has the highest percentage of African-American residents of any state (37% in 2010 and rising since then), and there's also a growing Latino population. This has given Mississippi the highest number of black elected officials of any state, and the Black Caucus in state government is powerful enough to have fended off the kinds of extreme legislation that passes more easily in other Deep South legislatures.

The linked article was written in 2015 and touched on how the state Republicans were recognizing that minority outreach would be crucial to their hold on power. Of course that was pre-Trump, and I don't think the Mississippi GOP can count on much minority support in the near future.

Interestingly, Thad Cochran owes his job to black groups who organized and got out the vote to defend him from a wild-eyed Tea Party primary challenger. They will not be offering that kind of charity in the open special election.

[Defiant]

Today is election day for PA-18, and Fivethirtyeight has an article on how towatch The Pennsylvania 18th Special Election Like A Pro

[Holman]

PA-18 went 20 points for Trump in 2016.

Republican candidate Rick Saccone is your standard Pennsylvania GOPer with no Roy-Moore-style baggage. The district is 96% white and has connections to the steel industry that would make Trump's new tariffs almost tailor-made to win support. Nevertheless, polling has trended towards predictions of a win by Democrat Conor Lamb.

The special election is being held, BTW, due to the resignation of the former incumbent, a pro-life family-values Republican discovered to have urged his mistress to get an abortion.

Oh, and Saccone likes to say things like this about Democrats:

“They’re energized for hate for our president,” Saccone said at a rally on the eve of Tuesday’s special election for the state’s 18th congressional district. “Many of them have a hatred for our country. I’ll tell you some more—my wife and I saw it again today—they have a hatred for God”

[El Guapo]

This is a funny special election. In a lot of ways it really doesn't matter - the district is slated to disappear due to the PA gerrymandering decision, so this is really just over one House vote for half a year - not really a big deal. But people care about it a lot, especially since it's one data point (and one morale point) going into the midterms. The common wisdom these days is that Lamb is probably a narrow favorite to win, though well within the margin of error. And also part of that I think is the Republicans playing down their chances, so that a narrow Saccone win (which would be super troubling for the GOP, given how heavily Republican the district is) will get spun in the media as a major victory.

[Isgrimnur]

Those voters will be going somewhere:

reddit: Megathread: Pennsylvania's 18th congressional district special election

Today, voters in Pennsylvania's current 18th district head to the polls to elect a new Congressman.
...
The winner of the contest will become Pennsylvania's 18th district's Congressman, but that district may not be around for much longer. In February, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court struck down the state's Congressional maps as a partisan gerrymander in violation of the state constitution's equal protection clause. An appeal to this decision is pending before the US Supreme Court (on a theory of violating the Elections Clause of the federal Constitution), but should a stay be denied, the existing configuration of the state's districts will be thrown out for the elections in November later this year. As a note to users looking for more information on this district, maps on Wikipedia have been updated, and the current 18th district is now largely split between the new 14th and 17th districts.

The 17th went to Trump 54 - 43%.

[Defiant]

This is a funny special election. In a lot of ways it really doesn't matter - the district is slated to disappear due to the PA gerrymandering decision, so this is really just over one House vote for half a year - not really a big deal. But people care about it a lot, especially since it's one data point (and one morale point) going into the midterms. The common wisdom these days is that Lamb is probably a narrow favorite to win, though well within the margin of error. And also part of that I think is the Republicans playing down their chances, so that a narrow Saccone win (which would be super troubling for the GOP, given how heavily Republican the district is) will get spun in the media as a major victory.

No matter who wins, polling suggests that there will be a massive shift to the Democrats (in line with most of the other recent special elections). But yes, if Lamb actually wins, it might spur on a few more resignations

[Holman]

It will also spur Trump, who just hosted a rally for Saccone, to tweet about how he was a lousy candidate who never had a chance and was never really MAGA so there.

[Brian]

It will also spur Trump, who just hosted a rally for Saccone...

A rally at which Trump barely even mentioned Saccone but took the time to talk about how awful Obama was and how great Trump is and to announce the new slogan for his own reelection campaign.

[El Guapo]

This is a funny special election. In a lot of ways it really doesn't matter - the district is slated to disappear due to the PA gerrymandering decision, so this is really just over one House vote for half a year - not really a big deal. But people care about it a lot, especially since it's one data point (and one morale point) going into the midterms. The common wisdom these days is that Lamb is probably a narrow favorite to win, though well within the margin of error. And also part of that I think is the Republicans playing down their chances, so that a narrow Saccone win (which would be super troubling for the GOP, given how heavily Republican the district is) will get spun in the media as a major victory.

No matter who wins, polling suggests that there will be a massive shift to the Democrats (in line with most of the other recent special elections). But yes, if Lamb actually wins, it might spur on a few more resignations

Right, the main thing that will matter about it is more data about voting. But the thing is that who actually wins doesn't actually matter that much. Lamb winning may well spark more Rs declining to run, but the difference between Lamb +1 and Saccone +1 shouldn't really make much of a difference on that (though I suspect that it will as a practical matter, even though it shouldn't).

[msteelers]

I didn't realize until earlier that my Dad lives in PA District-18. I've been pestering him all day to go and vote. He hates Trump, so I don't think he needed much motivation.

[Daehawk]

https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/13/politics ... index.html

GOP already blaming Trump's rally on losing this. They say even with tariffs that steel country is going Democrat.

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/201 ... elections/

[Holman]

Final PA-18 results are almost in, and Lamb (D) is leading by a razor-thin margin.

With 96% of the vote in, it's 49.9 Lamb to 49.5 Saccone.

PA has no mandatory recount for this kind of district race, but the loser will probably petition for one.

Absentee ballots have not yet been counted at all. It's been reported that 6,000-7,000 absentees were cast, and in the past they have tended to run more Dem than GOP. In a race separated by just a few hundred votes, they could be the deciders.

[Isgrimnur]

CNN shows a dead heat at 49.7% with fewer than 100 votes to Lamb's lead.

[malchior]

Projection: Barring a major tabulation error, Conor Lamb (D) has defeated Rick Saccone (R) in #PA18.

[Moliere]

[Max Peck]

Well, most hated by about 40% of America. For about 15 minutes.

[ImLawBoy]

While his vote total might equal the margin, it's fair to wonder whether he really made the difference. How many of his voters would never have voted for the (R) in the first place, and how many did he pull from the (D), who is not a classic socially liberal Democrat?

[Fitzy]

While his vote total might equal the margin, it's fair to wonder whether he really made the difference. How many of his voters would never have voted for the (R) in the first place, and how many did he pull from the (D), who is not a classic socially liberal Democrat?

I've been informed on this very board that even thinking about voting third party is the exact same as voting for Trump.

[Defiant]

From what I understand, there are 110+ seats in the House that are more competitve than PA-18, so...

Game on!

[malchior]

Important questions but the reality is in a first-past-the-post system you inevitably see this behavior. 3rd parties are pretty much just spoilers. That said they are more none of the above in many cases and that might be a good signal if anyone cared to listen to it.

[Defiant]

Important questions but the reality is in a first-past-the-post system you inevitably see this behavior. 3rd parties are pretty much just spoilers.

I would say that this is less true in the House, because we have seen third party candidates win House seats (it's rare especially rare in modern times, though), although the viability largely depends on the constituency and the candidate.

[Holman]

From what I understand, there are 110+ seats in the House that are more competitve than PA-18, so...

Game on!

I've read that there are 118, and the Dems only need to flip 24 to gain a majority in the House.

[malchior]

Important questions but the reality is in a first-past-the-post system you inevitably see this behavior. 3rd parties are pretty much just spoilers.

I would say that this is less true in the House, because we have seen third party candidates win House seats (it's rare especially rare in modern times, though), although the viability largely depends on the constituency and the candidate.

Fair enough - this is more straight up political science theory. A few outliers doesn't undermine the principle. If you want third parties and more inclusive democracy then you need to change first-past-the-post. Otherwise they are almost certainly just someone who can't win and is dismissed out of hand.

[Defiant]

I was listening to one of the 538 podcasts earlier, and one interesting thing of note was mentioned (well, other interesting stuff was mentioned too) - At this time, there are apparently only six races that Republicans currently control that will be uncontested (it was mentioned casually, so I don't know if that number if definitively correct, but it's a good sign that there will be Democratic candidates pretty much everywhere).

[Apollo]

The problem is that whenever the Democrats have all the power in recent years, it's only because the G.O.P. is screwing up royally and it doesn't last long. When the Dems are the majority they suddenly turn into the Republicans and waste all their political capital on unpopular legislation. Things like Crime Bills and Heritage Foundation dreamed-up insurance schemes that force everyone to buy health insurance, instead of easy winners like legalizing marijuana, going to single-payer healthcare or rebuilding the Nation's infrastructure.

This time will be no different and, even if the Dems sweep into power, two years after the next Democrat is elected President everything will flip again...

[El Guapo]

The problem is that whenever the Democrats have all the power in recent years, it's only because the G.O.P. is screwing up royally and it doesn't last long. When the Dems are the majority they suddenly turn into the Republicans and waste all their political capital on unpopular legislation. Things like Crime Bills and Heritage Foundation dreamed-up insurance schemes that force everyone to buy health insurance, instead of easy winners like legalizing marijuana, going to single-payer healthcare or rebuilding the Nation's infrastructure.

This time will be no different and, even if the Dems sweep into power, two years after the next Democrat is elected President everything will flip again...

It's pretty funny that you include "going to single-payer healthcare" as an "easy winner".

[Apollo]

It would be a lot easier to sell to the general public than what we ended up with. That's what I mean by "easy winners", not that they would be easy to accomplish through legislation.

Most Americans have no idea what the Democrats stand for or want to accomplish anymore.

[Kurth]

I'll also be interested to see what the Democrats take away from the Lamb win. There's been so much talk from the left that their candidates -- in the HRC mold -- have made way too many concessions and are not nearly as progressive as they need to be to energize the base. But Lamb certainly doesn't rank very highly on the progressive scale. By all accounts, he's a very conservative democrat. Definitely a moderate compared to someone like Bernie or Warren.

I watched Paul Begala and some stuffed shirt Republican on CNN last night. The Republican consultant was arguing that Lamb is basically a Trump-lite candidate (which I think is way overstating things). Begala refuted that, but he argued that the Democratic party is a big tent and has lots of room for candidates of all stripes, especially moderate Dems and especially in districts like PA18 where it needs candidates like that to win.

I liked what Begala had to say, but I think it's in tension with what appears to be the Democrats' conclusions from HRC's loss to Trump, at least from the Bernie and Warren segments of the party: That Dems need to go all-in with truly progressive candidates.

It was interesting to me that Anderson Cooper seemed to doubt Begala's point of view, suggesting that there just aren't that many Dem candidates today like Lamb. Also, the R made one really good point, I thought: This was a special election without a primary. A moderate/conservative Dem candidate like Lamb wouldn't have even made it out of the primary if there had been one.

Lots to think about.

[Holman]

It was interesting to me that Anderson Cooper seemed to doubt Begala's point of view, suggesting that there just aren't that many Dem candidates today like Lamb. Also, the R made one really good point, I thought: This was a special election without a primary. A moderate/conservative Dem candidate like Lamb wouldn't have even made it out of the primary if there had been one.

The R is actually wrong about this. Lamb didn't go through a primary per se, but the PA Dems held a caucus process that began with seven candidates across the party spectrum. Lamb won on the second ballot.

The claim that Lamb is a conservative is easily overstated, and the claim that he "ran as a Republican" is ridiculous. He campaigned strongly against the GOP tax plan and cuts to benefits, and he campaigned in favor of stronger unions, the ACA, and gun laws. Despite being Catholic, he committed to voting against restrictions on the right to choose abortion.

The basic lesson is that you run the candidate who can both (a) adhere to party principles and (b) win locally. In practice this has always been the case, and it's only the current fad for narrow ideological purity tests (even more prevalent on the Right than on the Left) that tries to deny this common sense political principle.

[El Guapo]

It would be a lot easier to sell to the general public than what we ended up with. That's what I mean by "easy winners", not that they would be easy to accomplish through legislation.

Most Americans have no idea what the Democrats stand for or want to accomplish anymore.

Single-payer is conceptually simpler, but in NO WAY would it be easier to sell to the public than the ACA. By definition single-payer would require throwing every single person in the country off their existing insurance (if they have any) and forcing them onto government-provided health insurance. You're also necessarily going to war with the (large) health insurance industry, and disrupting a lot of ancillary industries (most importantly, health care providers). Plus it's going to cost a lot of money, which means that you need to raise significant revenue, or be comfortable issuing even more debt (on top of whatever the final total the GOP adds to the deficit over the next years), which will also create significant political enemies.

Not to say that it can't be done, but it would be difficult, and (like the ACA) it would be *incredibly* unpopular when passed. Which in turn would contribute to making the Democrats turn in power shorter, not longer.

More generally, the Democrats have a built-in structural disadvantage, in that the Senate gives disproportionate power to rural areas that tend to be more conservative. There's also something of a geographic structural disadvantage in the House insofar as Democrats tend to cluster in cities, although I *think* the effect of that is not as strong.

[El Guapo]

It was interesting to me that Anderson Cooper seemed to doubt Begala's point of view, suggesting that there just aren't that many Dem candidates today like Lamb. Also, the R made one really good point, I thought: This was a special election without a primary. A moderate/conservative Dem candidate like Lamb wouldn't have even made it out of the primary if there had been one.

The R is actually wrong about this. Lamb didn't go through a primary per se, but the PA Dems held a caucus process that began with seven candidates across the party spectrum. Lamb won on the second ballot.

The claim that Lamb is a conservative is easily overstated, and the claim that he "ran as a Republican" is ridiculous. He campaigned strongly against the GOP tax plan and cuts to benefits, and he campaigned in favor of stronger unions, the ACA, and gun laws. Despite being Catholic, he committed to voting against restrictions on the right to choose abortion.

The basic lesson is that you run the candidate who can both (a) adhere to party principles and (b) win locally. In practice this has always been the case, and it's only the current fad for narrow ideological purity tests (even more prevalent on the Right than on the Left) that tries to deny this common sense political principle.

Also I think that Democrats and left-wing people of most stripes are sufficiently freaked out about Trump that that will paper over a *lot* of internal differences in the short-term (at least through these mid-terms), which gives the Democrats more leeway to run moderates without losing their base, or left-wing people without losing moderates/independents. If and when they get power back, though, that will start to dissipate (a la 2016).

[Defiant]

The basic lesson is that you run the candidate who can both (a) adhere to party principles and (b) win locally. In practice this has always been the case, and it's only the current fad for narrow ideological purity tests (even more prevalent on the Right than on the Left) that tries to deny this common sense political principle.

Normally, yes with some flexibility (though what are party principles varies based on who you asked, because different parts of the party care about very different things - I would say, provided they're going to vote with the Democrats on important issues at least 60% of the time, and they make sense for the for the constituency, that's fine with me - obviously, the bluer the district, the more leftwing the candidate should be).

Under the current situation, though, I'm all for running any sane candidate that can win locally, even if they're a traditional Republican in sheeps clothes, provided they're the only realistic option for winning in that district. Emphasis on sane.

[Kraken]

We've reached the point where "traditional Republican" is a radical thing to be. I support any attempts to return their party to sanity, even in the service of policies I disagree with.

The pattern that seems to be emerging is that a Trump whistlestop is the kiss of death. Presumably the party notices this.

[Apollo]

...Not to say that it can't be done, but it would be difficult, and (like the ACA) it would be *incredibly* unpopular when passed. Which in turn would contribute to making the Democrats turn in power shorter, not longer...

You think that giving people free health insurance would be less popular than requiring people to buy health insurance? I disagree, and I think a lot of it could be paid for by reversing some of the GOP's tax cuts. I don't think that the insurance industry would need to be shaken up anymore than it was for the ACA. And just ask Bernie how excited people get about getting things free that they currently have to pay for.

But my larger point is that Dems need to start backing policies that have broad appeal rather then letting the party activists control everything. This is a party that recently threatened a Government shutdown over DACA, a program that does not include a single US voter! If the Dems get in and waste their time helping illegal immigrants and going after gun owners, the majority is going to be very short lived. And it's not that we shouldn't be helping immigrants, it just shouldn't be the number one thing the party talks about. Look at the GOP: They desperately want to end Social Security, Medicaid, Food Stamps, etc. but they are smart enough to leave those issues on the back burner while talking about things that are a much easier sell to the American public, like tax cuts and deregulation. The Dems should do the same.

[El Guapo]

...Not to say that it can't be done, but it would be difficult, and (like the ACA) it would be *incredibly* unpopular when passed. Which in turn would contribute to making the Democrats turn in power shorter, not longer...

You think that giving people free health insurance would be less popular than requiring people to buy health insurance? I disagree, and I think a lot of it could be paid for by reversing some of the GOP's tax cuts. I don't think that the insurance industry would need to be shaken up anymore than it was for the ACA. And just ask Bernie how excited people get about getting things free that they currently have to pay for.

But my larger point is that Dems need to start backing policies that have broad appeal rather then letting the party activists control everything. This is a party that recently threatened a Government shutdown over DACA, a program that does not include a single US voter! If the Dems get in and waste their time helping illegal immigrants and going after gun owners, the majority is going to be very short lived. And it's not that we shouldn't be helping immigrants, it just shouldn't be the number one thing the party talks about. Look at the GOP: They desperately want to end Social Security, Medicaid, Food Stamps, etc. but they are smart enough to leave those issues on the back burner while talking about things that are a much easier sell to the American public, like tax cuts and deregulation. The Dems should do the same.

The ACA was also giving people free / heavily subsidized health insurance, while *mostly* leaving existing insurance alone (beyond removing limits and strengthening coverage requirements). And as for the mostly part...remember the whole "if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor" fiasco, and how people got so upset about the limited policy terminations (of shitty insurance) connected to the ACA? Now you're literally ending the existing insurance policies of *everyone*, and replacing them with an unknown government insurance plan. People will freak the fuck out, even if it ultimately proves to be a good thing and even if they ultimately like it in the long term. And the private insurance industry wouldn't be "shaken up", it would be completely ended. That's the whole "single payer" thing - you're replacing private insurers (the payers) with one public insurer - the government is now the single (only) payer. So they're going to be a little opposed to that.

And single payer (i.e. literally paying for the healthcare of everyone in the country) would be a tad expensive. So just taxing the rich wouldn't cut it.

Anyway, more generally the Democrats *are* backing widely popular policies - specific gun control measures, the ACA (which is now popular), opposing regressive tax cuts, DACA (which *is* popular amongst voters), protecting Medicare/Medicaid, etc. etc. Of course it's easy to back popular policies when the Republicans are focused on backing hugely unpopular ones.