It appears the blue wave is coming.
Conor Lamb win house seat in a Pennsylvania district that Trump won by 20 points. Seems to show the Alabama senate seat and Virgina elections were not flukes. Even the Republican victories since the election (and it's been a while) in heavy Republican districts have been much closer than they should have been.. If I were to hazard to guess, I'm thinking 20% of Trump voters are having buyer's remorse.
Lamb is very much a moderate, and it shows that if the Democrats want to win in some of these heavily Republican districts, some moderates could do very well and may move the Democrats more toward center (since the Republicans don't seem to have a center anymore).
If Trumpy continues to be an anchor on the GOP and if the Dems perform well in 2018 elections, will the GOP have the balls to primary Putin's boy?
More like will the moderate Republican majority have the balls to call animal control on their rabid dog?
We can only hope that those who voted for Trump will come to their senses, but even if they do not, I see the Trump train losing momentum.
The "trump revolt" is just beginning.
Maybe. That being said, the Democrats need to get a legit presidential candidate that is removed from the Clintons, President Obama, Pelosi, Sanders, and the like to run or Trump will win again especially if the economy is okay.
Personally, I'd like to see Kasich run again. Sadly, the current group of Republicans in the Congress and the House are too cowardly to back him.
The "trump revolt" is just beginning.
Maybe. That being said, the Democrats need to get a legit presidential candidate that is removed from the Clintons, President Obama, Pelosi, Sanders, and the like to run or Trump will win again especially if the economy is okay.
Personally, I'd like to see Kasich run again. Sadly, the current group of Republicans in the Congress and the House are too cowardly to back him.
The Democrats certainly need someone removed from the Clintons and Pelosi. Other than that, unless there is a split in the vote, it will be hard for the Democrats to lose. I think the key is to have your own message and not focus on trashing Trump. We've learned previously with Kerry and Romney that basing your campaign on trashing your opponent doesn't work. 60% of the voters already dislike Trump, but as we've already seen the person who gets the most votes doesn't always win. The key is to have somebody that appeals to the voters in the purple states. If the swing states like your message, you win.
No complaints from me for a moderate Democrat winning, I'd personally rather see divided government than one-party WH-Senate-House rule anyway. But the resistance folks at Rolling Stone, and presumably elsewhere, are nervous, appears he is too much of a centrist, a "Trump Democrat", to suit the appetite the far left demands.
No complaints from me for a moderate Democrat winning, I'd personally rather see divided government than one-party WH-Senate-House rule anyway. But the resistance folks at Rolling Stone, and presumably elsewhere, are nervous, appears he is too much of a centrist, a "Trump Democrat", to suit the appetite the far left demands.
The Democratic party has definitely moved to the left over the last 15 or so years, but not as much as the Republicans have moved to the right. There are plenty of pro-gun Democrats out there compared to anti-gun Republicans for example. A candidate should reflect their district, and should not feel obligated to vote party-line once in D.C. That's why we vote for candidates and not just for the party on your ballot. In the midwest, the Republicans have definitely gained momentum in recent years, but candidates like Lamb with a pro-union stance could really boost Democratic chances. Let's be honest, somebody like Sanders has lots of policies that are too far left for much of America, yet much of his popularity came from being a huge supporters for workers rights. With unions in decline these days, you need blue-collar Democrats that reflect constituents priorities.
Good points 2112.
This sentence drew my attention:
A candidate should reflect their district, and should not feel obligated to vote party-line once in D.C.
Exactly right. BUT, seems like national party politics comes into play during primary time and if a given candidate isn't 'left' enough or 'right' enough they run the risk of facing a well organized and possibly well funded primary challenge. I hate that. If local voters elect pro-gun Democrats or pro-life Democrats or Republicans who aren't reliable blanket tax cutters or Republicans who believe in man-made global warming all of that is fine and reflects individual and independent thought and I support those people with differing views than what the majority view is in the given party. I just wonder, for the likes of Lamb, it is a great victory for Democrats now because of the task at hand to get the House back. But if he isn't a reliable partner for the broad vision of the party, I wonder how long he will enjoy the support as an incumbent vs other party challengers. Goes for anyone really. I just hate that everyone has to fit into this box or that box and if you don't the party has little use for you - and the writer of the RS piece is already looking for somebody else to take Lamb's seat.
Good points 2112.
This sentence drew my attention:
A candidate should reflect their district, and should not feel obligated to vote party-line once in D.C.
Exactly right. BUT, seems like national party politics comes into play during primary time and if a given candidate isn't 'left' enough or 'right' enough they run the risk of facing a well organized and possibly well funded primary challenge. I hate that. If local voters elect pro-gun Democrats or pro-life Democrats or Republicans who aren't reliable blanket tax cutters or Republicans who believe in man-made global warming all of that is fine and reflects individual and independent thought and I support those people with differing views than what the majority view is in the given party. I just wonder, for the likes of Lamb, it is a great victory for Democrats now because of the task at hand to get the House back. But if he isn't a reliable partner for the broad vision of the party, I wonder how long he will enjoy the support as an incumbent vs other party challengers. Goes for anyone really. I just hate that everyone has to fit into this box or that box and if you don't the party has little use for you - and the writer of the RS piece is already looking for somebody else to take Lamb's seat.
A far left Democrat wouldn't have a chance in his district, so the Democrats should be happy with what they get. His district will elect moderate to right candidates, period. If the Democrats in his district elect a far left candidate in the primary, he or she will lose.
In a similar stance, as far left as California is, a well liked moderate Republican can win here (look at Arnold Schwarzenegger), but a far right Republican has no chance in a statewide election. If the Republicans chose to elect a far right candidate in the primary, it will only guarantee a Democratic victory.
