Forum Thread

Lessons learned from the Conor Lamb victory in Pennsylvania

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 8 Posts
  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Conor Lamb won a razor thin victory in a deep red district of Pennsylvania. What his victory demonstrates to me is that the candidate won by appealing to the issues that mattered most to the electorate in his district and not to the progressive wave of anti-Trump sentiments. I certainly did not agree with him on all the issues, but he did what was necessary to take one more seat away from the Republicans. For the progressives, however, he was a flawed candidate.

    Lamb is a Catholic, and as such he like many other Catholics believes that "life begins at conception.” But, he has also clarified that, “as a matter of separation of church and state, I think a woman has the right to choose under the law.” Maybe that seems a bit wishy washy, but it is hard to strike a middle ground on the pro-choice issue.

    The issue of abortion is divisive and for many on progressives on the left and the Christian conservatives on the right there is no middle ground to be had. But for the moderates like Lamb, they can carve out a position and win with it in certain districts. It may work in a district like Lamb's but won't fly in parts of red Texas or blue California.

    The lesson learned for me is that Democrats do not have to agree 100 percent with a candidate on such issues as abortion, guns, immigration or other divisive issues if the candidate's core issues on job creation, health care, inequality and taxes are solid. Applying purity tests to every Democratic candidate further exasperates our deep political divide.

    My opinion...

  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt Wrote:

    Conor Lamb won a razor thin victory in a deep red district of Pennsylvania. What his victory demonstrates to me is that the candidate won by appealing to the issues that mattered most to the electorate in his district and not to the progressive wave of anti-Trump sentiments. I certainly did not agree with him on all the issues, but he did what was necessary to take one more seat away from the Republicans. For the progressives, however, he was a flawed candidate.

    Lamb is a Catholic, and as such he like many other Catholics believes that "life begins at conception.” But, he has also clarified that, “as a matter of separation of church and state, I think a woman has the right to choose under the law.” Maybe that seems a bit wishy washy, but it is hard to strike a middle ground on the pro-choice issue.

    The issue of abortion is divisive and for many on progressives on the left and the Christian conservatives on the right there is no middle ground to be had. But for the moderates like Lamb, they can carve out a position and win with it in certain districts. It may work in a district like Lamb's but won't fly in parts of red Texas or blue California.

    The lesson learned for me is that Democrats do not have to agree 100 percent with a candidate on such issues as abortion, guns, immigration or other divisive issues if the candidate's core issues on job creation, health care, inequality and taxes are solid. Applying purity tests to every Democratic candidate further exasperates our deep political divide.

    My opinion...

    Here is my opinion. I wrote many times about that. Due to only a "two" party system then you get what you wrote about.

    In the Netherlands, France, Germany, Denmark etc. you have a multi party system; so you can elect the party which suits your idea's. Here it is either "left" or "right" nothing in between except "independents" who then become "wishy -washy".

    Due to our "corrupt" election system a "third" party never gets a chance because the bribery "money" only goes to the "big" parties. Once you take the "money" and "corruption" out of elections, may then it is possible to get multiple parties. Also I've never experienced over in Europe that "churches" have such huge influence on elections as here. I guess it is because we are an "island" and are only 300 years "old" and super religious; tax-free churches on every corner of the street! A financial "Paradise" for them, selling nothing but "snake oil"

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Are you saying to say and do what you can to get elected??
  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Chet Ruminski Wrote: Are you saying to say and do what you can to get elected??
    ????????
  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Dutch -- Yes, the difference of note between the European parliamentary election system and ours is in the respective special interest groups. In the parliamentary system each special interest group runs their own candidates and then after the election try to come together to form a coalition government. But any part of the coalition could quickly fall apart prompting a new election.

    In the United States we have many of the same special interest groups as the Europeans. However, we form coalitions into the Democratic and Republican parties (and a few lesser parties) before the elections.

    Europeans have, for example, special interest groups with the name "Christian" attached to them and they run their own candidates, but their elected candidates have a voice in the coalition government. In the USA, the various Christian groups (especially the Evangelicals and Mormons) align themselves with Republicans before the elections.

    I don't know that it makes much of a difference either way. What does make a difference as you so aptly pointed out, is the money in our politics. There is no question that huge money donations influence votes, and in effect each person accepting big money donations is "bought". His/her future votes will follow that money. It's why the really big donors like the Koch brothers have such influence, and they use that money to not only support their favorites but also attack their opponents. Negative ads have seemingly become the norm in our elections.

    It's difficult to extricate ourselves from the process. While we had laws on the books pertaining to campaign contributions, the very partisan Supreme Court overturned many of those laws. I've referenced this 2014 ProPublica article before, The Dark Money Man: How Sean Noble Moved the Kochs’ Cash into Politics and Made Millions. It gives you some insight into how the Koch brothers have thrived after the Citizens United 5-4 ruling by SCOTUS.

    This is a very big hurdle that we have to overcome. Once Republicans get a seat on the Supreme Court they are there for life and can undo any legislation passed by Congress. It might be easier to pass a Constitutional amendment than to "change the brains" of the five conservative judges on the court for life. Both very, very difficult.

    "Elections have consequences". -- Barack Obama

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Dutch Wrote:
    Chet Ruminski Wrote: Are you saying to say and do what you can to get elected??
    ????????

    The title of the post is "Lessons learned from the Connor Lamb Victory in Pennsylvania". From Rolling Stone: If Lamb made anything clear in his campaign, it's that he most certainly will vote with Trump on occasion. On guns, for one thing: Lamb opposes a ban on assault weapons, such as the AR-15 he was shown firing in one of his campaign ads. He supports the president's trade policies, too including the new tariffs. He pooh-poohs single-payer healthcare. He's as "pro-military" as a person could be. (He is also "personally opposed" to abortion, though he says it should be legal.)"

    I want to know what are the lessons learned. Lamb is pro gun, anti ban for AR15, pro tariffs. Anti single payer.

    What are the lessons to be learned? Lamb is a Democratic Hero or is he a used tool to win the seat. So what are the lessons to be learned?

    rollingstone.com/politics/news/why-demo...

  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Kenosha, WI
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Lamb is a Democrat In Name Only, a DINO.
  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Schmidt, thus in other words you rather stick with our outdated Constitution as well our worthless voting system. My bet is that all our next elections suffer from what I wrote, but no one has the guts to "really" amend the Constitution to these times, let alone get multiple parties or no money in elections as well making proper "vetting laws" for who ever wants to get into the Government; neither any gerrymandering or voter suppression.

    Yes I know how it works in Europe; it is not "perfect" either, but at least the "population" is more educated and informed than here. Also they've learned from the lessons in "history"(thousands of years and not only 300 years as here) due to the wars on their own soil. Here they will never learn, because they never had a clean "slate" to do so, as well no wars (since the civil war) on their own soil which made people think in Europe. Neither do they stick to an "outdated base law" which they have made a "living" document, which easily can be adapted to the times. Here it is just about impossible because a zillion lawyers will be involved and fight, especially if lots of "money" is involved. Yes this is la la land for sure because of lack of proper updated laws and enforceable "rules" The proof is in the "pudding"