• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Democrat poised to upset GOP in Pennsylvania special election

Top Cat said:
The Great Cheeto said he didn't need money. He lied. And you bought it.
Click to expand...

It doesn't change the fact that he spent less money than Clinton.
 
apdst said:
He's personally pro-life.
Click to expand...

Matters not. He's politically pro-choice because unlike conservatives, he doesn't wish to foist his religion on the rest of us.
 
poweRob said:
conor is pro choice so... just keep lying to yourself.
Click to expand...

The new PA map has Saccone and Congressman Lamb in separate CDs, easier runs for each. So the one-term nonsense you quoted from another is just that, nonsense.

It also adds 2 more CDs to the Clinton/gop list, now up to 25, and decreases the # of trump/DEM CDs from 13 to 12. Those 12 must be defended, along with at least a dozen more by my count ...
 
poweRob said:
Matters not. He's politically pro-choice because unlike conservatives, he doesn't wish to foist his religion on the rest of us.
Click to expand...

Lamb follows the Constitution, something trumpcons only cherry-pick ...
 
NIMBY said:
The new PA map has Saccone and Congressman Lamb in separate CDs, easier runs for each. So the one-term nonsense you quoted is just that, nonsense.

It also adds 2 more CDs to the Clinton/gop list, now up to 25, and decreases the # of trump/DEM CDs from 13 to 12. Those 12 must be defended, along with at least a dozen more by my count ...
Click to expand...

Then there's this... There are 119 Republican seats that are less red than what dems just won in Pennsylvania.

There are 119 Republican House members who should be VERY nervous today

Which brings me to the Cook Political Report's Partisan Voting Index or PVI. The goal of the PVI is to compare every congressional district to every other congressional district based on how it has performed in each of the last two presidential elections.

So, in the case of PA-18, it has a PVI of R+11, meaning that in the last two presidential elections it has performed 11 points more Republican than the nation as a whole.

Here's where things get very, very scary for Republicans: According to the latest edition of the Cook PVI ratings, which are based on the 115th Congress, there are 119 seats currently held by Republicans that have PVI scores of R+11 or lower.

One hundred nineteen! That's exactly half of the 238 seats Republicans currently hold -- HALF. It's far beyond the 23 seats that Hillary Clinton won in 2016 that are currently represented by a Republican. It's roughly five times as many seats as Democrats would need to pick up -- 23 assuming Lamb wins -- to retake the House majority come November.

And it's well more than the 74 seats that the Cook Report ranks as marginally competitive as of today.​
 
poweRob said:
Then there's this... There are 119 Republican seats that are less red than what dems just won in Pennsylvania.

There are 119 Republican House members who should be VERY nervous today

Which brings me to the Cook Political Report's Partisan Voting Index or PVI. The goal of the PVI is to compare every congressional district to every other congressional district based on how it has performed in each of the last two presidential elections.

So, in the case of PA-18, it has a PVI of R+11, meaning that in the last two presidential elections it has performed 11 points more Republican than the nation as a whole.

Here's where things get very, very scary for Republicans: According to the latest edition of the Cook PVI ratings, which are based on the 115th Congress, there are 119 seats currently held by Republicans that have PVI scores of R+11 or lower.

One hundred nineteen! That's exactly half of the 238 seats Republicans currently hold -- HALF. It's far beyond the 23 seats that Hillary Clinton won in 2016 that are currently represented by a Republican. It's roughly five times as many seats as Democrats would need to pick up -- 23 assuming Lamb wins -- to retake the House majority come November.

And it's well more than the 74 seats that the Cook Report ranks as marginally competitive as of today.​
Click to expand...

That Clinton/gop # is now up to 25, while the trump/DEM # is down to 12, with the new Pennsylvania map.

With this, it’s still the 142 remaps up in 2021, meaning the 99 state legislatures are the ultimate prize with the next two elections ...
 
poweRob said:
Matters not. He's politically pro-choice because unlike conservatives, he doesn't wish to foist his religion on the rest of us.
Click to expand...

nc2A wrestling just started on espnu.
And sure, match madness is wild.
With MLB starting in 2 weeks today ...
 
poweRob said:
Matters not. He's politically pro-choice because unlike conservatives, he doesn't wish to foist his religion on the rest of us.
Click to expand...

What does matter is, Lamb didn't sell himself as a flaming Liberal.
 
apdst said:
What does matter is, Lamb didn't sell himself as a flaming Liberal.
Click to expand...

He campaigned like Bernie.

Conor Lamb campaigned:
1. For universal health care
2. Against Trump's tax cut
3. For expanded background checks
4. For stronger unions
5. Against cuts to Social Security
6. For a woman's right to choose
7. For medical marijuana​


You're just desperate to hand wave this HUMILIATING defeat in redland. I don't give a rats ass if you want to call him conservative or liberal... With those positions I'll vote for him every day and on sunday.
 
Last edited:
poweRob said:
He campaigned like Bernie.
Conor Lamb campaigned:1. For universal health care2. Against Trump's tax cut3. For expanded background checks4. For stronger unions5. Against cuts to Social Security6. For a woman's right to choose7. For medical marijuana​
You're just desperate to hand wave this HUMILIATING defeat in redland. I don't give a rats ass if you want to call him conservative or liberal... With those positions I'll vote for him every day and on sunday.
Click to expand...
That's not what I'm seeing. Do you have a link?
In favor of coal and fracking, not in favor of single-payer health care, Lamb said he thought a $15 minimum wage “sounds high based on what I’ve been told by many small business owners in our area.”https://www.thenation.com/article/why-progressives-should-cheer-conor-lambs-victory/
Click to expand...
 
apdst said:
That's not what I'm seeing. Do you have a link?
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter...trump's toadie got his fat ass beat...It was Huuuuuuuuuuuuuuge...Biggest Win ever...Total Mandate....Saccone is a Loser
 
Saladin4 said:
Doesn't matter...trump's toadie got his fat ass beat...It was Huuuuuuuuuuuuuuge...Biggest Win ever...Total Mandate....Saccone is a Loser
Click to expand...

That might be what happened. Then again, it night not be.
 
Fletch said:
False. Maybe you should focus on things you know something about, like elections in Denmark.
Click to expand...

Actually maybe you should look things up before claiming it is false. There has been done quite a number of studies on the subject and they have all shown that the more you spend, the bigger the chance that you will win. There is even a long list of empirical evidence proving it. Of course there are outliers. However even with Trump vs Clinton the theory was proven correct. Clinton outspent Trump and won the most votes. That you have an outdated corrupt election rules is another thing.
 
PeteEU said:
Actually maybe you should look things up before claiming it is false. There has been done quite a number of studies on the subject and they have all shown that the more you spend, the bigger the chance that you will win. There is even a long list of empirical evidence proving it. Of course there are outliers. However even with Trump vs Clinton the theory was proven correct. Clinton outspent Trump and won the most votes. That you have an outdated corrupt election rules is another thing.
Click to expand...

And if money doesn't matter, why do they work so hard to get and have more?
 
Fletch said:
False. Maybe you should focus on things you know something about, like elections in Denmark.
Click to expand...

What was false about 11 million of gop dirty laundry for Saccone? trumpcons could stand to learn from foreigners who know more about our country than they ever will ...
 
PeteEU said:
Actually maybe you should look things up before claiming it is false. There has been done quite a number of studies on the subject and they have all shown that the more you spend, the bigger the chance that you will win. There is even a long list of empirical evidence proving it. Of course there are outliers. However even with Trump vs Clinton the theory was proven correct. Clinton outspent Trump and won the most votes. That you have an outdated corrupt election rules is another thing.
Click to expand...

Did clinton outspend Trump...if you add in the 1.5mil per month spent on Russian troll farms...i think they are about even.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom