Democrats win in Pennsylvania!

[_DoubtingThomas]

Goddamit! am I smarter than the national news networks? When are they going to project lamb the winner?

[_Hawkeye]

Santorum on CNN just said Saccone would need to get 64% of the remaining absentee votes from two remaining counties that went 53-56% red.

[_EAllusion]

Wasserman is calling it for Lamb (sans tabulating error, which is still not unheard of at this stage). He's legit, so you can start saying Lamb probably won. What would realistically would have to happen for him to lose is the remaining absentee vote would have to split against him to a degree that all the election day information suggests is quite unlikely, per Nate Cohn's reasoning. Not impossible, but I suppose he can start swirling the champagne in the ice.

If they have an automatic recount trigger law, I got to imagine this is going to a recount, though.

[_DoubtingThomas]

Wasserman is calling it for Lamb (sans tabulating error, which is still not unheard of at this stage). He's legit, so you can start saying Lamb probably won. .

We can analyze the map and the trends myself. We don't need a reporter to tell us there are not enough votes left in westmoreland to make a difference.
https://www.cnn.com/election/2018/penns ... l-election

[_DoubtingThomas]

But I guess CNN and the others are waiting for the results that make it mathematically impossible for Saccone to win.

Good night! Congratulations to ourselves!

[_Xenophon]

Nate Silver, just a second ago in response to the argument that Rick Saccone was a bad candidate:

There are exceptions (e.g. Roy Moore) but most of the time the "bad candidate" label is applied as a somewhat lazy post-facto rationalization for an electoral outcome that people don't like.

Man, ain't that the truth.

Although I fully agree with not throwing around the "weak candidate" label, especially just because they lost, I do think Lamb was a pretty damn good choice for the 18th, whereas Saccone didn't really make much sense. Specifically Saccone's anti-labor stance is a pretty toxic set of positions in a district of nearly 100,000 union households and we saw organized labor rallying heavily around Lamb because of it. Couple that with the fact that his fundraising was piss-poor and that he failed with the whole Trump-before-Trump-was-Trump bit and it isn't hard to see why some would be tempted to label his campaign as "a joke" (Corry Bliss of Congressional Leadership Fund, SuperPAC).

Perhaps it is just more accurate to state that Lamb knew what his win conditions were and he did a great job with the execution of that plan. That, along with the general lean of the nation and it was a pretty ideal scenario for him to flip a seat(or get pretty close to it).

[_Xenophon]

It looks like that barring a recount, they are calling it for Lamb.

[_MeDotOrg]

Trump's baseline supporters are with him through thick and thin. He will always draw a good crowd, and most of the people in that crowd will love his antics.

But Republicans that are not true blue Trump supporters are pulling away. Trump supporters laughed when he mocked the idea of being 'Presidential', but I think a lot of people are beginning to realize that Trump could not be Presidential if he tried. It's not in his nature. And the district didn't swing 20 points because Saccone was bland and uninspiring. That's not nearly enough of a reason. I think maybe 7 points at MOST for Saccone being uninspiring. The rest you can lay on the President.

The GOP outspent the Democrats. They hired door knockers to walk precincts, and still they couldn't win a district they'd won by 20 points less than 2 years ago. The Trump show is loved by a few, but it is starting to get old for most.

[_subgenius]

Trump's baseline supporters are with him through thick and thin. He will always draw a good crowd, and most of the people in that crowd will love his antics.

But Republicans that are not true blue Trump supporters are pulling away. Trump supporters laughed when he mocked the idea of being 'Presidential', but I think a lot of people are beginning to realize that Trump could not be Presidential if he tried. It's not in his nature. And the district didn't swing 20 points because Saccone was bland and uninspiring. That's not nearly enough of a reason. I think maybe 7 points at MOST for Saccone being uninspiring. The rest you can lay on the President.

The GOP outspent the Democrats. They hired door knockers to walk precincts, and still they couldn't win a district they'd won by 20 points less than 2 years ago. The Trump show is loved by a few, but it is starting to get old for most.

I think your post underestimates how many Democrats didn't show up to vote for Hillary Clinton in 2016.

[_Hawkeye]

But I guess CNN and the others are waiting for the results that make it mathematically impossible for Saccone to win.

Good night! Congratulations to ourselves!

Why are you so excited about this election?