Republicans may have lost a House seat in that Pennsylvania election, but here's what should rattle

[mystery-ak]

Republicans may have lost a House seat in that Pennsylvania election, but here's what should rattle them even more

By Cathleen Decker
Mar 14, 2018 | 9:00 AM
| Washington



The most dangerous outcome for Republicans in Tuesday's special House election was not the prospect of a Democrat taking over one of their seats.

It was the shrugging off by voters of the party's biggest legislative achievement: the tax cut measure that Republicans hoped would be their major campaign message as they head toward a turbulent midterm election.

Though the popularity of Trump's tax plan has grown since it was passed last year, it stalled as an election issue in Pennsylvania, leading Republicans to shift away from it late in the campaign in search of another topic to energize supporters of state legislator Rick Saccone.

"It looks like it just petered out," pollster Patrick Murray of the nonpartisan Monmouth University Polling Institute said of the tax plan's impact on the election.

more
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-election-republicans-20180314-story.html

[Frank Cannon]

the race offered another look at the political potency of a nationally unpopular president whose presence in the White House has fanned unprecedented levels of Democratic enthusiasm.

Funny. I don't recall these articles when Obama had worse poll numbers at this point in his Presidency and there were "Tea Bagger" protests all over the place.

[libertybele]

the race offered another look at the political potency of a nationally unpopular president whose presence in the White House has fanned unprecedented levels of Democratic enthusiasm.

Funny. I don't recall these articles when Obama had worse poll numbers at this point in his Presidency and there were "Tea Bagger" protests all over the place.

....and?  Who cares about Bammy's poll numbers at any given time?  That was then, this is now.  I am quite surprised that  Saccone's numbers weren't higher and he didn't win.  You would think that with Trump's recent tax plan and proposed tariffs on steel would have made a much greater impact on votes coming from Steel country and they didn't.  That should sound off alarms to the GOP; Trump and the GOP no longer hold the votes in PA.  Trump announces tariffs on steel, weeks before the special election in PA and the GOP candidate loses indicates a problem!  This is what, the 4th or 5th special election that the GOP has lost?  I think that they really need to realize that they have a major problem going into the mid terms and need to get their act together.  The DEMS have a much better ground game going on...BIGLY!

[Night Hides Not]

the race offered another look at the political potency of a nationally unpopular president whose presence in the White House has fanned unprecedented levels of Democratic enthusiasm.

Funny. I don't recall these articles when Obama had worse poll numbers at this point in his Presidency and there were "Tea Bagger" protests all over the place.

The results from 2010, the TEA Party uprising, took the MSM by complete surprise.

[Jazzhead]

....and?  Who cares about Bammy's poll numbers at any given time?  That was then, this is now.  I am quite surprised that  Saccone's numbers weren't higher and he didn't win.  You would think that with Trump's recent tax plan and proposed tariffs on steel would have made a much greater impact on votes coming from Steel country and they didn't.  That should sound off alarms to the GOP; Trump and the GOP no longer hold the votes in PA.  Trump announces tariffs on steel, weeks before the special election in PA and the GOP candidate loses indicates a problem!  This is what, the 4th or 5th special election that the GOP has lost?  I think that they really need to realize that they have a major problem going into the mid terms and need to get their act together.  The DEMS have a much better ground game going on...BIGLY!

QFT.  I don't know about the local Dems' ground game,  but the reality is that the Dems want to nationalize the elections as a referendum on Trump, and we need to respond in kind that this is about preserving the recovery and the new jobs.   A big Trump rally where the President waves the bloody shirt for an hour and only mentions the Congressional stakes in passing is playing into the Dem narrative.     Whether you support Trump or still don't like/trust him,  if you care about the economy and JOBS and GROWTH and the tax cuts and the reform of the bureaucracy and the roll-back of regulations, then the GOP Congressional majorities must be preserved.

We need to nationalize the election, but on OUR terms, not theirs.     

[libertybele]

QFT.  I don't know about the local Dems' ground game,  but the reality is that the Dems want to nationalize the elections as a referendum on Trump, and we need to respond in kind that this is about preserving the recovery and the new jobs.   A big Trump rally where the President waves the bloody shirt for an hour and only mentions the Congressional stakes in passing is playing into the Dem narrative.     Whether you support Trump or still don't like/trust him,  if you care about the economy and JOBS and GROWTH and the tax cuts and the reform of the bureaucracy and the roll-back of regulations, then the GOP Congressional majorities must be preserved.

We need to nationalize the election, but on OUR terms, not theirs.   

The only ground game that the GOP needs to play is proving that liberalism hasn't worked in the past, isn't working now and won't work in the future.  Game over.  The liberals don't have a leg to stand on.

[Cyber Liberty]

QFT.  I don't know about the local Dems' ground game,  but the reality is that the Dems want to nationalize the elections as a referendum on Trump, and we need to respond in kind that this is about preserving the recovery and the new jobs.   A big Trump rally where the President waves the bloody shirt for an hour and only mentions the Congressional stakes in passing is playing into the Dem narrative.     Whether you support Trump or still don't like/trust him,  if you care about the economy and JOBS and GROWTH and the tax cuts and the reform of the bureaucracy and the roll-back of regulations, then the GOP Congressional majorities must be preserved.

We need to nationalize the election, but on OUR terms, not theirs.   

'Firmtive.  Republicans win when they successfully nationalize elections.   Whenever people get a good look at what the Dems want to do, they lose.

[Fantom]

The results from 2010, the TEA Party uprising, took the MSM by complete surprise.

That was an uprising.


 So far the democrat party is not turning out any bigger numbers than they usually do... less than peak moron actually. Why are R's sitting on hands... that is the question.

[DB]

'Firmtive.  Republicans win when they successfully nationalize elections.   Whenever people get a good look at what the Dems want to do, they lose.

Isn't talking Trump essentially nationalizing it? That may be why it isn't working this time...

[Cyber Liberty]

Isn't talking Trump essentially nationalizing it? That may be why it isn't working this time...

It's being nationalized with Trump as the boogie man, and it doesn't matter much what he says.  I'd bet there are a lot of Party Chairs who would be fine with allowing big losses now to knock Trump out in 2020.  One does not need to be a big Trump fan to see this.

[DB]

It's being nationalized with Trump as the boogie man, and it doesn't matter much what he says.  I'd bet there are a lot of Party Chairs who would be fine with allowing big losses now to knock Trump out in 2020.  One does not need to be a big Trump fan to see this.

Trump had a lot to do with that. I don't know how anyone could believe him on much of anything. This is a predictable consequence of electing him. We've been repeatedly assured that the cost of electing him will be less than what he accomplishes. I strongly doubt that but only time will tell.

[INVAR]

That was an uprising.

It was.  And it was soon taken over and sabotaged by the very party and leadership it was trying to empower to stop all the bullshit from the Democrats.

1.5 Trillion dollar deficit spending is what Republicans now do, not just Democrats.

[Fantom]

It was.  And it was soon taken over and sabotaged by the very party and leadership it was trying to empower to stop all the bullshit from the Democrats.

1.5 Trillion dollar deficit spending is what Republicans now do, not just Democrats.

Here is my  vid from that era. 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMCthBf3lqk

Ok, so you say it is all the same...... are more Americans working? At better jobs. I do not think it is all the same. We can work on the other..deficits , when we fix the first...working. That is what the marxist left failed at.

[libertybele]

It's being nationalized with Trump as the boogie man, and it doesn't matter much what he says.  I'd bet there are a lot of Party Chairs who would be fine with allowing big losses now to knock Trump out in 2020.  One does not need to be a big Trump fan to see this.

Agreed.  Trump is in no way popular with those within his own party.  2020?  I think their trying to ensure that he's impeached after the mid terms.

[INVAR]

Ok, so you say it is all the same...... are more Americans working? At better jobs. I do not think it is all the same. We can work on the other..deficits , when we fix the first...working. That is what the marxist left failed at.

So we're in debt beyond what all the wealth on the planet is worth, and you are saying that as long as Americans have jobs, the government can keep spending until we get around to being able to 'fix' that??

If government sees no problem spending beyond what we are capable of affording when things are tough and jobs are non-existent, what make you think government is not going to spend even moreso beyond what we can afford when jobs are plentiful and there's more revenue being collected????

You cannot fix deficit spending by 'fixing' employment first. 

You STOP spending first, you shrink government and let the people keep a lot more of their own money to invest in themselves.

But that is no longer a Republican policy or belief.

Managing the Marxist State is better than Democrats is the policy and belief apparently.

[Fantom]

So we're in debt beyond what all the wealth on the planet is worth, and you are saying that as long as Americans have jobs, the government can keep spending until we get around to being able to 'fix' that??

If government sees no problem spending beyond what we are capable of affording when things are tough and jobs are non-existent, what make you think government is not going to spend even moreso beyond what we can afford when jobs are plentiful and there's more revenue being collected????

You cannot fix deficit spending by 'fixing' employment first. 

You STOP spending first, you shrink government and let the people keep a lot more of their own money to invest in themselves.

But that is no longer a Republican policy or belief.

Managing the Marxist State is better than Democrats is the policy and belief apparently.

We are in debt at about ones years worth gdp.  WWII put us over that  I believe. Not sayin' it does not have to be addressed.

But actually growing the economy comes first.

[Suppressed]

We are in debt at about ones years worth gdp.  WWII put us over that  I believe. Not sayin' it does not have to be addressed.

But actually growing the economy comes first.

Actually growing the economy is hard to do when the POTUS stomps on the brakes.

Tariffs are designed to slow the economy.  That's exactly what we don't need now.  You mention the recovery of that debt after WWII --> as tariffs were reduced, and the potential for expansion of our economy was evident. 

We don't have such a potential now, absent some unforeseen development (like the Internet explosion).  We're stuck having to be responsible and not wait for Santa Claus.

[INVAR]

We are in debt at about ones years worth gdp.  WWII put us over that  I believe. Not sayin' it does not have to be addressed.

But actually growing the economy comes first.

Are you kidding me?

Stopping spending when you are in debt comes first.

PAYING that debt already owed by growing the economy follows.  Going into MORE debt to pay debt is beyond ludicrous and always ends in disaster.

You got it backwards.

I don't know anybody stupid enough to think that when they are 100k in credit card debt and mortgaged up the ass without a job - that the solution to the problem is to continue to charge up the credit cards while trying to find a job that pays 100k.  As if that somehow that is going to fix the problem.

The people are addicted to free handouts and the government is addicted to spending our money.

Growing an economy is NEVER going to fix that - because there is not enough wealth on the planet to cover the insatiable appetites of those in power.

[DB]

Here is my  vid from that era. 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMCthBf3lqk

Ok, so you say it is all the same...... are more Americans working? At better jobs. I do not think it is all the same. We can work on the other..deficits , when we fix the first...working. That is what the marxist left failed at.

It is easy to make the economy buzz when you cut taxes and spend more borrowed/printed money. But it is smoke and mirrors and temporary by its nature. It takes time for the consequences to come to bear.

[Frank Cannon]

....and?  Who cares about Bammy's poll numbers at any given time?  That was then, this is now.  I am quite surprised that  Saccone's numbers weren't higher and he didn't win.

Based on what? Tell me what was so compelling about Rick, a guy who held almost zero meet and greets with the public and stumbled around with his words when he did have one? Add to that his opponent was good looking and was on the same page with most issues that PA cares about, that being primarily guns. We do not care about abortion anymore. It is a loser issue in PA.

This is the same thing that happened in the New Hampshire special election where the GOPer pushed Gun Control after the FL school shooting while the Rat said no to it. That is insane.

Beyond that, what exactly do you want to have happen if things are the way you say they are and the GOP is hated? You want them to dust off the tired worn out "We will repeal Obamacare" bullshit? You want them to run against Trump and call for his impeachment?

I read a lot of handwringing about these loses, but no one thing that would have change the outcome. 

[libertybele]

Based on what? Tell me what was so compelling about Rick, a guy who held almost zero meet and greets with the public and stumbled around with his words when he did have one? Add to that his opponent was good looking and was on the same page with most issues that PA cares about, that being primarily guns. We do not care about abortion anymore. It is a loser issue in PA.

This is the same thing that happened in the New Hampshire special election where the GOPer pushed Gun Control after the FL school shooting while the Rat said no to it. That is insane.

Beyond that, what exactly do you want to have happen if things are the way you say they are and the GOP is hated? You want them to dust off the tired worn out "We will repeal Obamacare" bullshit? You want them to run against Trump and call for his impeachment?

I read a lot of handwringing about these loses, but no one thing that would have change the outcome.

???  The point is Trump won PA.  This was a special election held in the same state that Trump won that a GOP candidate lost.  I didn't say anything about Saccone running on guns, abortion or Bammycare.  What I did say was that Trump announced his plan to place tariffs on steel just weeks before the special election in steel country.  The GOP candidate lost; Trump promoting the GOP candidate, Trump's plan for steel in steel country did absolutely zilch for the GOP candidate running. 

The GOP not only lost this special election, bus has lost the last several special elections.  Is this a reflection on Trump and his policies?  Is this indicative of what's going to happen during the mid-terms?  The answer is a matter of opinion as no one has a crystal ball.

We can sit and look at poll numbers, voter turnout past and present, less then desirable candidates, Trump policy negatively affecting candidates, more funds raised by the DEMS, etc., etc., but at the end of the day, the GOP has lost several special elections.  Regardless of the excuses, reasons, or justifications, they lost.  They will continue to lose as long as what they are currently doing remains status quo. Nothing has changed other than Trump in the oval office. IMHO Trump won because he bucked the status quo, he went against the grain and most importantly he was able to tap into people's emotions on specific issues.  Since the GOP/Trump hasn't delivered on those issues they are losing.

" You want them to run against Trump and call for his impeachment? "  Not quite sure where you got this idea as I want Trump to succeed and yes, I realize that members of his own party have been trying to highjack his presidency.  The status quo of the GOP in D.C. still exists.  The people had hope as a wall, no amnesty and repeal was promised.  You are right, they can no longer run on those issues, because they didn't deliver.  They can't proclaim that their promises were kept.  They didn't deliver on the very issues that gave Trump the presidency and allowed us to retain the majority.

[Frank Cannon]

???  The point is Trump won PA.  This was a special election held in the same state that Trump won that a GOP candidate lost.  I didn't say anything about Saccone running on guns, abortion or Bammycare.  What I did say was that Trump announced his plan to place tariffs on steel just weeks before the special election in steel country.  The GOP candidate lost; Trump promoting the GOP candidate, Trump's plan for steel in steel country did absolutely zilch for the GOP candidate running. 

The GOP not only lost this special election, bus has lost the last several special elections.  Is this a reflection on Trump and his policies?  Is this indicative of what's going to happen during the mid-terms?  The answer is a matter of opinion as no one has a crystal ball.

We can sit and look at poll numbers, voter turnout past and present, less then desirable candidates, Trump policy negatively affecting candidates, more funds raised by the DEMS, etc., etc., but at the end of the day, the GOP has lost several special elections.  Regardless of the excuses, reasons, or justifications, they lost.  They will continue to lose as long as what they are currently doing remains status quo. Nothing has changed other than Trump in the oval office. IMHO Trump won because he bucked the status quo, he went against the grain and most importantly he was able to tap into people's emotions on specific issues.  Since the GOP/Trump hasn't delivered on those issues they are losing.

" You want them to run against Trump and call for his impeachment? "  Not quite sure where you got this idea as I want Trump to succeed and yes, I realize that members of his own party have been trying to highjack his presidency.  The status quo of the GOP in D.C. still exists.  The people had hope as a wall, no amnesty and repeal was promised.  You are right, they can no longer run on those issues, because they didn't deliver.  They can't proclaim that their promises were kept.  They didn't deliver on the very issues that gave Trump the presidency and allowed us to retain the majority.

In what alternate world does the sitting President pick up seats in his first off year election? It happened once in my lifetime and that was right after 911. Remember the wipeout Reagan had in '82? That happened in states he carried with candidates losing pushing his agenda.

You speak as though you just came out of a coma and never have seen this happen before. I would also like to remind people why there was a special election in this district in the first place. It wasn't because the GOPer was so loved that the voters bought him a vacation to Hawaii. The GOP brand was pretty damaged there after Donny won it.

[libertybele]

In what alternate world does the sitting President pick up seats in his first off year election? It happened once in my lifetime and that was right after 911. Remember the wipeout Reagan had in '82? That happened in states he carried with candidates losing pushing his agenda.

You speak as though you just came out of a coma and never have seen this happen before. I would also like to remind people why there was a special election in this district in the first place. It wasn't because the GOPer was so loved that the voters bought him a vacation to Hawaii. The GOP brand was pretty damaged there after Donny won it.

Not hoping for the GOP to pick up any seats; merely hoping that they hold on to their majority.  If they don't we are royally screwed and my hunch we will see a much more liberal Trump.

No, not in a coma, nor am I going to try to equate past election results to this election and I really don't care as to why there was a special election, the fact is the GOP lost.  Obviously Trump had enough support in PA to win the election; and obviously it would seem that that support is gone.  The GOP has lost the last several special elections, regardless of reason; they lost.  Let's not whine like Hillary and make all kinds of excuses and innuendos.  A loss is a loss period.