This PA election shows that we need left and center

[wasupaloopa]

Dems to take back the House.

Any purity test voters are not going to help us win.

[texasfiddler]

1. Very True

[elleng]

2. in this particular district.

[wasupaloopa]

4. I think much of the Mid West will be like this district

[NurseJackie]

20. Actually, Elleng... in this AND MANY MANY OTHER districts as well. :-)

Oooo. Well... unfortunately, that choice of words ("in this particular district") gives the impression that it's being characterized as simply a rare and isolated example, or some one-off instance. And that's simply not the case.

I certainly hope that our party leaders will take a lesson from this and will begin to examine each region and each district carefully... and then create campaigns that are best suited for those particular voters (their culture, their concerns, their values, etc.)

It's good to see that our folks on-the-ground have a keen understanding that Democrats can't run Vermont-style politicians in EVERY region of the country and expect to win in these bright-Red or deep-Maroon regions of the country.

[elleng]

22. Yes, exactly,

'examine each region and each district carefully... and then create campaigns that are best suited for those particular voters'

[LanternWaste]

29. I completely agree. Collectively, Democrats should find the best match

I completely agree. Collectively, Democrats (from national to local leadership) should find the best match between the candidate and the specific district he or she is running in.

I doubt Sanders (or Van Hollen or Takano) could have eked out the narrow margin of victory that Lamb did.

[fleabiscuit]

32. Correcto, purity is a test for water not for candidates. nt

[femmedem]

3. Yes, and a Libertarian helps, too. N/t

[wasupaloopa]

5. If we are still the minority nothing changes.

[femmedem]

6. Not sure if you misunderstood me or I misunderstood you

but I'm saying that in a very red district with voters who can't bring themselves to vote D, a Libertarian is going to help Democrats (as is happening tonight in PA).

[Hortensis]

9. Perhaps. But Miller drew fewer votes than Lamb's

lead, at least so far, and some of those would have gone to Lamb. I think it's too early to assume that distracting voters with a third choice, instead of setting out the differences between Democrat and Republican as clearly as possible, is a good thing.

Many people here on DU haven't really clued in to the fact that Democrats are fighting to save government of, by and for the people as Republicans attempt a permanent shift of wealth and power to a dominating class--finally moving to what conservatives failed to achieve in Hamilton's days. Most people still think it's just about taxes and immigration.

[DeminPennswoods]

15. Miller drew over 1000 votes

That's more votes than Lamb won by.

[Hortensis]

18. I saw a different figure, but fine. Not an admirer

of libertarianism and glorification of intense self-ishness, and the sooner this ideology is seen for what it is, the better. Less than 1 vote out of 200 suggests it is in PA's 18th, but it's much more highly favored among some of the very wealthy. And that's a huge part of what's happening.

Maybe for a quick reality check wonder what the real end game of limiting access to healthcare is. If Paul Ryan and the libertarian billionaires controlling today's GOP got what they are known to really want for America, a widespread "cleansing" of society's unwell would be the result.

Psychologists say libertarian personality lacks the altruism that both liberals and conservatives have. They see it as a moral and intellectual weakness that leads to societal decline.

To some degree they're right, of course. But the current epidemic of kidney disease is the sudden result of new sedentary and much longer lives after 20,000 years of agrarian life and 25-year average lifespans. We'll beat it without cutting access to dialysis.

[Demsrule86]

31. Ah so maybe I was wrong... the libertarian third party does serve a purpose...to help beat the evil

Republicans...kind of deliciously ironic since they whipped up the Clinton/ Sanders divide during the general.

[LiberalBrooke]

7. Ive had it with the purity voters.

Why would you want someone with a F grade instead of an A minus? It is much better to elect a person who agrees with you most of the time instead of none of the time. Voting 3rd party only makes you feel virtuous, it does nothing for our country.

[VOX]

10. Spot on. And a belated welcome to DU, LiberalBrooke.

Agree 100%. "Purity voting," voting third party, or abstaining always brings the same result: a loss.
And as we've experienced all too painfully, there are some losses from which recovery is extraordinarily difficult.

Times are hard right now, but glad to have you here.

[Demsrule86]

28. Welcome LB...I agree completely.

[LBM20]

8. Yup!

[Hortensis]

11. "Find candidates who fit the district" is being chanted

like a mantra by commentators. This is not a winning idea for the far left, of course.

But it's as true today as it always was. Lamb is the kind of liberal Democrat who moderate conservatives in his constituency could accept as an alternative, as are the Democratic candidates who became Virginia's governor and Alabama's senator.

Respect for what constituents want is key.

Rebuilding our fallen center is happening!

[Demsrule86]

27. It is completely true and why the DCCC in a somewhat of an awkward maneuver was trying to

get the candidate they though could win in Texas.

[Hortensis]

33. Yes. Awkward that they helped give someone

who is a very bad fit for the district national support from people who know nothing about her. At least almost none of them can vote in the runoff.

[Demsrule86]

34. I hope Fletcher win...and that she is not too damaged by this.

[Lee-Lee]

12. Ive been saying this for years

A moderate dem, hell even an R who runs as a dem, in that seat is better than any r in that seat.

Because the most important thing is having a majority in both houses. Period.

When you have the majority, you control what gets voted on and what never even sees a vote. You set the tone and the agenda.

And so even if that D doesn’t vote like you want all the time, then in that seat means a party leader- who won’t be a “moderate” because you have to come from pretty safe seats to have seniority- is calling the shots.

I live in a very red area. We elected Heath Shuler, however. Was he a perfect dem? Hell no. But he helped put us in the majority in the House, and with that majority we got the ACA, Lilly Ledbetter, repeal of DADT and so much more great legislation passed. Even though he voted against many of them, his ass in that seat helping us have a majority meant they got passed.

[Cosmocat]

14. YEP!

nm

[Demsrule86]

26. Yep...and when we have the majority that sort of Dem should be allowed to vote against us if it is

not critical or we have the votes without them...come on Dems...let's be smart...we need a majority.

[Cosmocat]

13. The last time the Ds had control of congress it had

a blue dog contingent.

We can't get there again without "moderate" dems ...

[DeminPennswoods]

16. I wouldn't lable Lamb as a "blue dog"

Blue Dogs are generally business-friendly and against raising taxes, meh on social programs etc.

Lamb is a populist, economic liberal.

[Cosmocat]

19. I didn't

Just using the term to illustrate that we aren't going to get a majority in the House without a healthy contingent of reps flying under the dem flag that are going to fray away from the party on more than one or two issues ...

[Demsrule86]

25. That is what I have been saying...the only time Dems had the majority was with ideologically

diverse members.

[NewJeffCT]

17. While I would obviously prefer a strong liberal

Having Lambslide Conor Lamb voting with Democrats 75-80% of the time is a helluva better than Saccone voting with them 0-5% of the time.

[JCMach1]

21. Yep, the triangulators are back

[Demsrule86]

24. So hopefully is a Democratic majority which is needed to stop the GOP agenda and their getting

judges-gives us time to work at the grass root level to change hearts and minds.

[Demsrule86]

23. I have been saying this for months...we need to go back to a 50 state strategy...

field candidates that can win in their districts or states...kick divisive organizations like our revolution who believe that ideological purity is more important than winning to the curb. A house full of the pure without a majority=nothing. The primarying of Manchin in particular enrages me...we could lose up to five Senate seats this years which would give the GOP a working majority. We never had a majority without a big tent...in 2010...moderate Dems lost their elections and we lost our majority.

[dameatball]

30. I agree. Maybe we should also remember LBJ.

If I remember correctly, he was added to the ticket to help balance it, along with Kennedy's northeastern liberal appeal. But in the end, he actually ushered in sweeping changes which in history are seen as victory for liberal values. Who expected that in 1960?

I voted for Hillary because of her qualifications. Hard to accomplish much if you don't win.