I expressed skepticism yesterday about the suggestion that the Democrat's victory in the southwestern Pennsylvania congressional district that had gone for Trump by 20 points means they have a real chance of picking up more than 100 seats in the coming midterm election. My skepticism doesn't mean, however, that I think the Republican talking points, or spin, from their place below the electoral rubble are plausible or anything other than laughable.
For example, we are told, by the Speaker of the House and others, that Lamb "ran on Trump's agenda." This claim is open to a basic objection: it's false. The NRA would probably give Lamb a C- at best, his leading sin being support for expanded background checks that, according to gun rights fundamentalists, amount to a stealthy repeal of the Second Amendment. His position on abortion is that he's "personally opposed" but doesn't want the Roe decision overturned--a viewpoint that generally goes by the name "pro-choice." Trump's only legislative achievement is the tax reform bill, which Lamb, like Nancy Pelosi, opposed on the ground that it's a big giveaway to the rich.
Mentioning the name of she-devil Nancy Pelosi reminds me that Republicans are also making a lot of Lamb's assertion that he would not vote for her for party leader. If Lamb's against her they can claim him for their own! Well, sure, but it's risible. It's true that Republicans have demonized Pelosi, but this says more about them than it does about Lamb or the Democrats. Presumably Republicans understand that there will be an opposition party, which will have a leader, with whom they will disagree. Pelosi, an Italian Catholic who with her husband of more than 50 years has raised a passel of high-achieving kids, is in some ways an odd object for contempt tending toward hysteria--but, on the other hand, she's a powerful woman, from California, specifically San Francisco, all of which associates her in the Republican hive mind with America not being great. I think they need a new answer for "San Francisco" in a free association test--instead of Gay People Living Happily, how about White Guys Making Really A Lot Of Money? And if these rich white guys want to be represented by Nancy Pelosi, then Democrats running for office in Appalachia could express support for her, too.
My favorite bit of nonsense relating to the special election result in Pennsylvania comes from the White House: Trump's endorsement helped the Republican in the race, but just wasn't quite enough to haul his sorry ass across the finish line first. Though look how close he came! The power of Trump!
There is an actual reason that it's possible to make too much of Pennsylvania's special election result. Yes, the district went for Trump by 20 points, and has in recent history been about 11 points more Republican than the country as a whole. But this doesn't take account of how many persuadable voters there are in the district. Here is an article, from the 538 blog, that describes the concept pretty clearly, with special attention to the difference between Alabama and Mississippi. Trump got 63% of the vote in Alabama, compared to only 58% in Mississippi. You might therefore be tempted to argue that, since a Democrat just won a Senate seat from Alabama in admittedly unusual circumstances, the same thing could happen in Mississippi if the conditions were almost as surreal. But that's probably not right. In both Alabama and Mississippi, whites vote for Republicans and African-Americans vote for Democrats. Trump won Alabama by more because there are fewer African-Americans in Alabama. But then you have to ask another question: when the tide turns against Republicans, how likely are usual Republican voters to abandon ship and vote for the other team? In Alabama, there are quite a few, and they have a similar demographic profile: they've been to college, they have professional jobs, or their spouses do, and they live in places like Huntsville or the suburbs of Birmingham. There are far fewer such people in Mississippi. Jackson and Biloxi do not resemble Birmingham and Huntsville. My dad, who had a science job at Honeywell, was always traveling for work to Huntsville, Alabama, which is an aerospace center. Probably never been to Mississippi in his life, certainly not for work. The Republicans of Mississippi vote for the Republican, no matter what. In a "normal" election, Alabama is more Republican, but there is no elasticity whatever in the Mississippi electorate.
Pennsylvania's current 18th congressional district is, on this "elasticity" scale, more like Alabama than Mississippi, mainly because it includes a considerable swatch of suburban Pittsburgh--the only part of the district where Lamb won a majority of the votes. Losing in southwestern Pennsylvania doesn't mean the Republicans are going to lose in rural districts across the Midwest, where the partisan index might have less tilt toward the GOP but persuadable voters are scarce.
Comments