Minnesota Network for Progressive Action

Politics Blogs - Blog Top Sites

Listed on BlogShares

site search

Site Meter
  Progressive Political Blog

Progressive Politics in Minnesota, the Nation, and the World

What Did We Learn From Pennsylvania 18?

Category: Congressional Races
Posted: 03/14/18 19:34

by Dave Mindeman

In the 18th District of Pennsylvania, Democrat Conor Lamb has, most likely, squeaked out a win in a district that Trump won by 20 points in 2016.

So what do we learn from this?

First, let's examine what we know about this race.

1) Conor Lamb is NOT a progressive candidate.
2) Rick Saccone was not a top of the line candidate.
3) This district will not exist by the next election.
4) The Republican Party sank an extraordinary amount of money into this race while the Democratic forces put very little in support.
5) Conor Lamb was a great fundraiser on his own, and put together his own centrist message without outside help.

Now that is a lot to absorb, so let's try to figure out what that means for Congressional elections coming up in the fall.

That first item is important. Conor Lamb did not run on a progressive platform. In fact, he stated that he would prefer leadership in Congress that did not include Nancy Pelosi and that he was not favorable to gun safety legislation. The district, itself, is very conservative and Lamb fashioned a very clever centrist message which appealed to the district's core values. But he did not shy away from being a Democrat either - he is pro-choice, ran against the GOP tax plan, and supports a fix to the ACA.

On the other hand, Rick Saccone never could settle on a message. He was tentative about Trump at first, then fully embraced him. And he made plenty of unforced errors. Republicans in Washington did not find a way to help Saccone and in the end almost threw him under the bus.

Going into the fall, Pennsylvania will be fully redistricted and Lamb and Saccone will both be in different redrawn districts. Lamb's will be slightly more blue and Saccone will fall into a fairly competitive one. Which made the Republican investment in this election all the more curious. Obviously, they were very afraid of the message a loss could send and their worst fears were realized.

The key thing in PA18 is that Lamb understood his district well and was not afraid to venture into positions that were unique to him - and not part of some national message.

Can that translate in elections across the country? Well, yes and no. Democrats can win with a national message in a lot of districts - but if they want to compete in red areas as well, that message will need to be narrowed to their own district.

I guess the bottom line is that Democrats need to open up the tent if they want that "blue wave" to materialize. We can't have litmus tests. The candidates have to know and understand the people they will represent.

Which brings me to the progressive movement. Progressives are going to have to be realistic about candidates like Conor Lamb. He won because he was NOT a progressive. He won because he fashioned his own message.

As progressives, our goal is progressive policy. To promote that, we need to have the potential of a majority vote in Congress. Yes, that means we will need to support a lot of progressive candidates - but in order to pass real progressive legislation, we need to have an opportunity to persuade centrist and semi-conservative candidates who have the ability to win in districts that have less than progressive priorities....to convince them that they need to support an agenda which will succeed for everybody.

So let's have the progressive policy debate AFTER we have an opportunity of working with a majority in Congress.

Win first - debate like hell later.
comments (1) permalink
03/18/18 15:36
What do you mean by "...real progressive legislation..."?

Neither party is clear about an agenda. More blue tribe vs red tribe nonsense.

All political types would be well served by reading General Dempsey's new book... Radical Inclusion The hate messaging by progressives right now has intensified to violence. That hate message is very clear... "You either embrace our entire agenda or you are the problem and the target of my unhinged hatred."

The stereotyping of fly over states by Clinton and the rest of the coastal elites is amazingly polarizing. Identity politics has become toxic to the point of complete rejection by the public--unless of course you happen to fall into the population of virtuousness--a.k.a. college educated urban professionals. It makes me ill just thinking about the ridiculousness of the rhetoric.

If you happen to be female, rural, stay at home, high school degree mom, who likes children (born and unborn)...your opinion not only doesn't matter--it's not welcome to be spoken aloud. If your sole contribution to society happens to be behind the wheel of a big truck, your opinion doesn't matter and is unwelcome of spoken aloud. If you are a business owner that supports the employment of 50 families, you are the problem and have no virtue beyond allowing society to confiscate your income--and you will be hated anyway!

That's a tough platform. Especially in a society that still enjoys a secret ballot.


« January 2021 »
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31

Latest posts


(one year)




RSS Feeds

RSS 0.91
RSS 2.0

Powered by
Powered by SBlog
Copyright © Minnesota Network for Progressive Action. All rights reserved. Legal. Privacy Policy. Sitemap.