Lamb's Win Points to GOP Losing 60 House Seats, Senate Control

[mystery-ak]

By John Gizzi
Thursday, 15 Mar 2018 09:26 AM

The apparent win of Democrat Conor Lamb for Pennsylvania's 18th District has shaken the Republican establishment to its foundations and points to a "wave election" in the coming midterms that will end Republican control of both the House and the Senate.

"If the trend continues until Election Day, the Republicans are looking at a loss of 60 or more House seats and control of the Senate," a top Republican strategist who asked not to be identified told Newsmax in the wake of the stunning Democratic upset Tuesday.

Some Republicans took comfort in Republican Rick Saccone's photo-finish against Lamb, but political insiders said the result was nothing less than a political disaster.

"This district was ready-made for a Republican win," the strategist explained. "It's literally Trump country with 94 percent of voters being white and voting consistently Republican for years, and Trump carried it in '16 by 20 points."

more
https://www.newsmax.com/john-gizzi/conor-lamb-gop-house-senate/2018/03/14/id/848686/

[RoosGirl]

I was told last night that the democrats are more like Donald Trump.  So it doesn't really matter if they win, right?

[skeeter]

I was told last night that the democrats are more like Donald Trump.  So it doesn't really matter if they win, right?

They'd be better than Trump. They'd talk and smell nicer, and wouldn't attract the riff raff.

[mountaineer]

This is SOP for Western Pennsylvania.

WOW! Republicans Say PA Voting Machines ‘Miscalibrated’, Saccone Votes Changed To Lamb
March 15, 2018 by Joshua Caplan

On Tuesday, Pennsylvania’s 18th district held a special election in which Democrat Conor Lamb is widely believed to have edged out his Republican rival Rick Saccone. While absentee votes are still being counted, Republicans are raising concerns that some voting machines were “miscalibrated,” which led to votes being switched from Saccone to Lamb.   ...

More at Gateway Pundit

[Night Hides Not]

I was told last night that the democrats are more like Donald Trump.  So it doesn't really matter if they win, right?

First order of business will be impeachment, not that it matters. You need 2/3 vote in the Senate to convict and remove from office.

Trump's twitter will blow up, and the media will lap it up.

[jmyrlefuller]

a top Republican strategist who asked not to be identified

So, basically, fabricated rumors.

First off, a national campaign is far different than the kind of targeted one-off special election targeting campaigns the Democrats are running now, and like it or not, the sudden shift in the Dems' favor didn't happen until several months in. They elected plurality candidates like Connor Lamb and Doug Jones, when they realized central-office stooges like Jon Ossoff were going to get them nowhere.

Second, after the Dems cleaned up in 2006 and 2012, they have very few opportunities to gain, and plenty to lose.

Still, the Republican Party needs to wake up, find and support candidates the electorate actually wants.

[INVAR]

I was told last night that the democrats are more like Donald Trump.  So it doesn't really matter if they win, right?

No.  It doesn't matter.

It's a Uniparty Oligarchy where they trade off leadership every so often in shell-game theatrics to fool the gullible imbeciles that vote for them that they stand for the little people - while they exponentially grow the state and our debt.

[bolobaby]

This is SOP for Western Pennsylvania.More at Gateway Pundit

Give me a break. This wasn't voter fraud. This is a matter of not having a conservative identity any more.

[mountaineer]

Give me a break. This wasn't voter fraud. This is a matter of not having a conservative identity any more.

It's true Saccone and the Republicans failed. No argument from me.
 But - and I say this as a Pittsburgh native - it's also true that voting machines that miraculously change R votes to D are very common in my home county.

[Free Vulcan]

This all sounds great, but can the Dems do this nationally in the general? The overall voter turnout was around 20% of the '16 general. It's very easy to whip up party enthusiasm and motivation for those small contests, but is there real breadth and depth there for the much larger general election contest?

The problem is the Dems are blowing alot of capital and effort into these special races, which leaves the big question of whether they will have enough money to cover all the races in the fall. The DNC is broke, and with all they've spent so far, can the PACs make of the difference?

[Frank Cannon]

a top Republican strategist

Let's see. Was it Mike Murphy or Steve Schmidt? Both of them hate Donny and predicted he would lose. They also haven't ever been part of a winning campaign ever.

BTW it is impossible for the Rats to win 60 seats. There are not more than 20 swing districts anymore.

[Victoria33]

The problem is the Dems are blowing alot of capital and effort into these special races, which leaves the big question of whether they will have enough money to cover all the races in the fall. The DNC is broke, and with all they've spent so far, can the PACs make of the difference?

@Free Vulcan

The Dems spent .5 million on this race.  The Reps spent over 10 million.  It is the Reps who are spending like crazy.
I think it is possible for the Dems to take the House and Senate based on voter turnout for both parties so far.  Historically, Dems vote less in primaries than Reps.  Dems are showing up in record numbers so far and that includes the Texas primary.

[Jazzhead]

Of course the Dems can gain control of Congress; history favors them making mid-year gains, and they are motivated, both to vote and to nominate candidates that don't come across as left wing monsters.  You know: ex-military,  gun owners that say they're for "common sense" gun laws,  folks that say they're "personally pro-life". 

If the GOP doesn't unite around the theme of nationalizing this election,  then I think the Congress (certainly at least the House) will flip.
 
But I'm not talking about nationalizing the election by making it a referendum about Trump.  That's what the Dems want.   We need to concede the election will be nationalized, but change the theme.   Preserve the economic expansion.   Don't jeopardize the tax cuts.  Don't jeopardize the new jobs.  Make this a pocketbook election,  about an economy that is strong but needs support in the form of steady-as-it-goes Republican leadership.

The Dems want to make it about the chaos.   We need to make it about the recovery.       
     

[240B]

This has to be the twentieth headline I have read since the election talking about "Lamb's win" or "Lamb's victory". This is at least a little bit odd, considering that the issue isn't over yet.

[WingNot]

This has to be the twentieth headline I have read since the election talking about "Lamb's win" or "Lamb's victory". This is at least a little bit odd, considering that the issue isn't over yet.

Before that it was Roy Moore's defeat.   Before that it was some other little dicked Rat that won a state rep seat.   Nothing to see here no mater how hard Victoria want's to do her Jeane Dixon impersonation.  Pure pie in the sky Rat BS.   

[Victoria33]

Before that it was Roy Moore's defeat.   Before that it was some other little dicked Rat that won a state rep seat.   Nothing to see here no mater how hard Victoria want's to do her Jeane Dixon impersonation.  Pure pie in the sky Rat BS.

@Wingnut

I evaluate using voting number facts, so it is an estimate of what could happen based on the numbers so far.  If you have an extra fortune telling pretty gazing ball, it would look good on a coffee table, so send it.   

[WingNot]

@Wingnut

I evaluate using voting number facts, so it is an estimate of what could happen based on the numbers so far.  If you have an extra fortune telling pretty gazing ball, it would look good on a coffee table, so send it.   

Am I off your ignore list?

[truth_seeker]

It's true Saccone and the Republicans failed. No argument from me.
 But - and I say this as a Pittsburgh native - it's also true that voting machines that miraculously change R votes to D are very common in my home county.

So did the dems win by voting fraud?

Are Republicans (there, and elsewhere) smart enough to anticipate problems along those lines, and do anything about them?

[240B]

@Wingnut

I evaluate using voting number facts, so it is an estimate of what could happen based on the numbers so far.  If you have an extra fortune telling pretty gazing ball, it would look good on a coffee table, so send it.   

Tea Leaves



Crystal Ball



My personal favorite - Chicken Bones


After throwing bones, I have to agree. If the recount and lawsuits are resolved in time, it does look like Lamb will be a Congressman for a month or so. And then we do the whole thing over again.

[Free Vulcan]

@Free Vulcan

The Dems spent .5 million on this race.  The Reps spent over 10 million.  It is the Reps who are spending like crazy.
I think it is possible for the Dems to take the House and Senate based on voter turnout for both parties so far.  Historically, Dems vote less in primaries than Reps.  Dems are showing up in record numbers so far and that includes the Texas primary.

Counting all groups, the GOP side spent $11.2M, Dems $4.7M, per Open Secrets.