Posted on 03/15/2018 7:04:48 AM PDT by Kaslin
Republicans have a chance to learn and grow. The question is whether they will take this opportunity to do that.
I am writing this column on the morning after the special election for Pennsylvania's 8th congressional district, and the race is too close to call. In a district that Donald Trump won by almost 20 percentage points in 2016, too close to call is a surprise to many -- especially to Republicans.
While Democrats will be busy claiming victory, no matter the final result, and will rush to proclaim a blue wave in the fall for the mid-term elections, there is still a lot of political time before the mid-term elections. Losing provides an opportunity for learning -- if it is taken. This week, when tennis great Serena Williams lost to her sister Venus, her response was one worth emulating: "I've grown most not from victories," Serena said, "but setbacks. If winning is God's reward, then losing is how he teaches us." The question is: Will Republicans spend time in reflection and reconsideration -- and learn from this experience?
The lessons: elections are about choice; likability and optimism matter, and voters want a candidate who will work for them.
In our current two-party system, voters often make their choices based on whom they dislike the least. The victors, after winning, often conclude that they earned the votes they received, rather than understanding that voters selected them as the lesser of two evils.
Part of the reason Trump won in November 2016 was because he was the better choice when compared with Hillary Clinton. She was surly, negative and petulant during the race. Her candidacy appeared to be more about her than about the American people.
The Democratic primary was thrown Clinton's way by Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D., Fla., who was the Democratic National Committee chair until it became evident that she was throwing the primary for Clinton. If that had not happened, who knows who would have won the general election? If Trump had run against Joe Biden, the former vice president and everybody's favorite uncle, the outcome could have been different.
Tuesday's special election in Pennsylvania was also a choice between two candidates. On the Republican side, Rick Saccone, an Air Force veteran who played a diplomatic role in North Korea, and served in the Pennsylvania State House. On the Democrat side, former marine and former federal prosecutor Conor Lamb.
Saccone tied himself closely to Trump, while Lamb declared that he would NOT support Nancy Pelosi, D., Calif, for speaker of the House, thereby negating Republican attempts to tie him to Pelosi.
While Saccone appeared determined and dedicated, Lamb came across personable and caring. Lamb ran as a conservative Democrat, who not only renounced Pelosi, but supported Second Amendment rights. During appearances, Lamb voiced optimism.
Saccone's message focused on supporting Trump and his agenda. Lamb communicated that he cared about "the real issues ... that affect your lives."
While Saccone said he would work with Trump, Lamb said, "I'll work for you." Voters want candidates who work for them. Their elected officials are supposed to work for them -- that's their job. And when that work aligns with the work of the president, that's great. But voters are unlikely to vote for a flunky to serve someone else.
The relative reality of political races means that, while competence matters, so does likability. If both candidates are deemed competent, then the one who is more likable will win. The question voters ask is this: do they (the candidates) care about me, or a person like me?
In a Monmouth University poll taken days before the election, the results provided a partial view into the race outcome. "Lamb earns a net positive 53 percent favorable and 33 percent unfavorable rating," versus "Saccone at 47 percent favorable and 43 percent unfavorable." The overall gap in net positive ratings was Lamb 20 percent net positive, versus Saccone 5 percent net positive.
Serena Williams' response to her loss was professional and will result in a positive outcome for her. The question is whether the Republicans will learn their lessons as well. That elections are about relative choice; likability and optimism matter and voters want a candidate who will work for them.
“learn and grow. The question is whether they will take this opportunity to do that”...
The Republicans seem to have difficulty learning and growing. My wife and I have become sooooooooo disappointed in them, we have switched to independents (usually supporting a repub but not always).
Then Trump, seeming more like an “independent” came along. You can guess where our allegiance is today.
They won’t because the GOPe still runs the show......and they don’t mind returning to minority status as long as the Chamber of Commerce can still march on. They are just as happy playing the role of “loyal opposition”. CTH just posted a great in-depth article on just this topic
It is tough to run against a charismatic person in the first place. But when that person is a democrat and runs to the right of his party, it is really hard.
Saccone did not run a great race. Does the GOP needs to pick better candidates, surely. But regardless, that candidate must be connected with the voters and not insult them (anti-Union).
So...is she saying don't run on of a campaign of supporting the President? That voters think the President isn't working for them? I'm not sure that's a winning plan.
Now let's see if he was a liar or will actually be a 'Reagan Democrat' type and help Trump with those things.
It would be nice to have some DINO's in office.
Lamb was LYING to win! The Pubbies need to find some young Conservatives to run......NOW. The face of the Party needs to be younger and more wholesome. I know there are younger Republicans who would love to shake up the system via Trump Rules. Find them and let them run! Enough of this ‘it is MY TURN’ crap.
Lousy candidates lose. End of lesson .
No matter how the election goes, one way or the other, the bottom line is that Republican, Candidate, Rick Saccone did not get near the turnout of voters that POTUS, Donald j. Trump received in 2016, Had he been a more pro-active candidate, he would have politically slaughtered Democrat, Conon Lamb!!! Lamb out campaigned him from the start.
Saccone was as foolish and laid back, as Judge, Roy Moore in Alabama was,...come om, riding around on a horse, goofing off, instead of non-stop campaigning will do you in every time. I cannot believe Republican campaign leadership is that dumb....or maybe I am wrong and they, the GOP(E) really want it this way. With Ryan, McConnell, Rove, etc. I just simply wonder?
want it this way
Caring? (gag)
Democrat Lamb is radically pro-abortion, said he would vote for partial birth abortions.
We can safely assume he's a Planned Parent hood suckup.
Selling aborted baby body parts is so "caring."
I learned nothing from that article except voters maybe liked the Democrat more.
“Lamb ran as a conservative Democrat, who not only renounced Pelosi, but supported Second Amendment rights.”
This is the ONLY reason he won. This guy on the Republican party platform. All these nervous nellies refuse to recognize the obvious. The Democratic party didn’t win, this guy did. The minute he begins to vote with Pelosi and has any kind of voting record, he’s out on his ass.
I’ll bet you that a bunch of folks who voted for Trump, also voted for Lamb.
Right ur to point where their taxes go up and guns confiscated.
The GOP was down 7 points, Trump held a rally and the race was tied.
Lesson the GOP-E doesn’t want to learn. Trump voters are loyal to the Trump agenda, not the GOP.
Also, the author got it completely wrong. Lamb ran as “willing to work with Trump”. He ran as a “God and Guns patriotic law and order vet”. So basically he ran againt the National Democrat party and lied his way into office.
Now he has a problem. Does he go to DC and buck the party, and lose the 5.6 million in far Leftist fund raising he got for this special election or does he vote in Congress as a good little DNC stooge and risk pissing off the people who thought he was serious when he ran on a pro-God/Pro Guns anti Peolosie agenda?
It funny that Lamb campaigned like Trump campaigned while the GOP-E candidates are campaigning like lazy Hillary did. Seems the GOP-E has the same “I’m entitled to the office” mentality Hillary had in both 2008 and 2016
But were they really down 7 points?
Now he has a problem. Does he go to DC and buck the party, and lose the 5.6 million in far Leftist fund raising he got for this special election or does he vote in Congress as a good little DNC stooge and risk pissing off the people who thought he was serious when he ran on a pro-God/Pro Guns anti Peolosie agenda?
He sticks with what got him there would be my expectation. Lamb may be a lot of things but one thing he did prove was he isn't stupid.
Saccone was starting out in a hole because he was replacing a guy who had spent two decades lying to his voters about supporting their values.
He needed to work twice as hard to overcome that. He didn’t even come up to half-speed.
It was an easy no brainer for the Trump / hillary race.
Heaven or hell ..... filter or plain end ..... car or truck ..... yes or no.
THAT race was SO polarized.
But the Lamb / Saccone race was conservative or conservative and the delivery of that message by a young and energetic politician verses a rather dull and dry one made any democrat that DID flip for Trump, come back to their roots because they were thinkin' ... "Now THAT'S what I'M talkin' 'bout !"
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.