Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
U.S. House Win in Arizona for the (R)
So Republican Debbie Lesko has won a special election for Arizona’s 8th congressional district over Dem. Hiral Tipirneni.
Lesko, a former state lawmaker, will head to Washington to replace Franks, who resigned his seat in December midway through his eighth term over sexual-misconduct allegations. She will complete his term, which expires in January, and run for a full two-year term of her own in the fall elections.
Meanwhile, Democrats will point to an unbroken string of nine special federal elections now in which they have improved over their 2016 showing. That performance has the party looking ahead to the November elections with an eye toward regaining control of one or both chambers of Congress.
To do that, they still need to win a net 23 seats in the House after falling short in Arizona’s 8th Congressional District.
Moments after winning, Lesko gave an emotional talk to supporters at the home of a neighbor who hosted her victory party.
“It’s very surreal,” she said. “Twenty-five years ago, I left an abusive husband. And I sure as heck, never would have dreamt in a million years that I would be running for Congress, be a congresswoman.”
I thought that the Elephants would never win again and we were facing a never-ending onslaught of Blue Wave. The Mainstream Media is talking about the narrow margin of victory for Lesko and why it portends disaster for the party of Donald Trump in the fall. But just maybe, maybe, that won’t be the case.
Published in General
Debbie Lesko was a good candidate. Imagine what would have happened if the Democrats had nominated someone who had fit the district better.
The 22nd Amendment was ratified in 1951. Between there and 2016 there are eight 8 year periods (1952 election to 2016 election). You throw out two of those as special. Are we to take seriously a law-like claim based on six data points? That there are special reasons for 1/4 of the cases (2/8) to not follow the rule should suggest that the rule is weak, if a rule at all (absent some serious elaboration with testable significant variables). Not a reasonable basis for the claim “[a]ny Republican would have worn in 2016.”
1952-1960 R-Eisenhower
1960-1968 D-Kennedy/Johnson (lot to unpack there but let’s overlook)
1968-1976 R-Nixon/Ford (perfectly normal, nothing to see)
1976-1984 D-Carter/R-Reagan (special case, omit from analysis)
1984-1992 R-Reagan/GHW Bush (special case, omit from analysis)
1992-2000 D-Clinton
2000-2008 R-GW Bush
2008-2016 D-Obama
Actually easy to argue.
How long is until your unconventional wisdom becomes conventional? Youre little different than Gary – running the same playbook from a previous election that fits your biases. What happens when the conventional wisdom turns out to be correct?
Yes! The good thing about Ms. Rubin is that she hasn’t changed a bit since she became the Post’s version of a house conservative. There have been a couple of recent pieces–including one notable one by Charles Cooke–that made her seem a few bricks shy of a load, but those of us who want our preconceptions about Trump confirmed to the max know better.
Rubin went off the deep end a while ago. She’s lost all sense of objectivity. Doesn’t mean she’s always wrong.
Wait wait wait wait wait.
This Jennifer Rubin?
Well, that might mean that Lesko ran 31 points worse than Trump, or it might mean that the Democrat ran 31 points better than Hillary. Frankly, I think it’s a lot easier to believe that someone is 31 points better than Hillary than it is to believe that someone is 31 points worse than Trump.
And your point is? 86% of Republicans approve of the job he is doing. When in the name of the Lord are you going to realize that you can argue what ifs until the cows come home, but the fact is Donald J. Trump won the 2016 election and is now the Republican president of the United States. There is zero you can do to alter that fact. Period.
There is evidence that Trumps increasing popularity amongst Republicans is actually reflective of the party getting smaller.
And your evidence is? Kindly point it out on the web, or, even better, give us a link.
I think that it usually is correct (no data on that), or it wouldn’t be conventional. In this instance I think it likely is correct (i.e., severe losses in the House). However, there’s something about the facile way it’s tossed around to little or no end with DJT being the focus of all that is wrong that deserves rebuttal. And who better to do that (ta da) than someone who didn’t vote for Trump in the first place, but has been motivated by the caterwauling in the Greek chorus. As for my “playbook,” please remind me when it becomes annoyingly divorced from fact and we can discuss.
For the record. Reagan and Bush held the White House for 12 years. 1981-1993.
31 points better than Hillary extrapolated over 435 house races is an ill omen for the GOP in 2018. A retiring sitting speaker also looks grim. Keep hoping the president can stay above 40 percent-so far so good!
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/blogs/right-turn/wp/2018/01/08/evidence-trump-is-shrinking-the-gop/
Jen Rubin’s column! Everything is recursive!
Turnout motivators are different, and turnout is less, for mid-terms. I relooked at the numbers I used for my earlier comment and realized I made a mistake. Compared to the last mid-term in 2014, the GOP vote in the AZ special election was 33,000 less and the D vote 41,000 more [NOTE: actually in 2014 the district was considered so GOP, the D’s did not even run a candidate – the American Elect Party candidate got 41,000 votes], so the total turnout was 3% higher than for the 2014 election. That is very high for a special election.
In general what we are seeing in these elections is more motivated D voters than R voters so margins are slipping even when there are wins. Anyone looking at these results would be concerned at this point about the mid-terms. In the Senate where the Dems are defending 25 seats and the GOP only nine, we are now concerned about holding that chamber. That’s simply a crazy position to be in.
The best reason for voting GOP in November is the same reason many people, me included, who can’t stand Trump, voted for him in 2016 – he was better than the alternative. A GOP congress, however feckless and lacking, is better than the alternative.
There is also no way the GOP can disassociate itself from Trump, even if it wanted to. Even most of the GOPers who can’t stand the man personally, support most of his actions. You can’t run on a campaign slogan of “I can’t stand Trump, but I’ll vote for most of what he wants”. You aren’t going spur a big turnout that way and you run a risk of turning off Trump’s strongest supporters. You gotta ride the horse you have and hope he doesn’t jump off a cliff.
Meaningless because apples and oranges.
Presidential votes in the old AZ-02/ current AZ-08: Bush and McCain 61% (Franks was around 60% in those elections), Romney 62% (Franks 63%), Trump 58% (Franks 69% against Green Party, no Democrat on ballot). These were all regular November elections and electorates.
If 60% is normal for the Republican House candidate, before incumbency benefit kicks in, and without the cloud of scandal, there is a good chance Debbie Lesko improves special election 53% to at least Trump’s 58%, and possibly reaches early Franks elections’ 60%.
Do you have anything to say about the data?
Actually, the “horses” should be McConnell and Ryan, if they had been serious over the past 8 years. They said they needed the House, they were given the House. They said they needed the Senate, the voters gave them both. They said they needed the Presidency, the voters gave them the whole elected government. At which point they immediately colluded with Democrats to delegitimization the Presidential election (but not theirs) in order to void a condition of the promises they never intended to keep.
They will only survive if the House GOP switchs Speakers and starts “riding” though their promises now. Senate candidates and the President must bring enough pain now on McConnell to quickly end nomination obstruction, clearing the deck by Memorial Day, and reform at least the Defense and DHS appropriations to a 51 vote rule. The message through the primaries must be that any more obstruction and avoidance on party promises will result in leadership and committee assignments being stripped, imposing party discipline as the Democrats have.
Ok, fine. But Trump is gonna be Trump, for better or for worse. That does not address the issue: Should I just race home tearfully, leap into bed and turn the electric blanket up to nine? Let go and let God? Because cursing, complaining and whining sure isn’t a winning strategy. What is to be done to maximize the chances of a positive outcome in this election cycle?
That the person analyzing it for the Washington Post is untrustworthy.
It’d be awesome, but it’s a big ask.
There are two issues here, both of which will have an impact. As I pointed out above the GOP leadership has not frustrating, though, for the most part, it has done Trump’s bidding. I agree that McConnell should end the obstruction (and btw, the administration has still not nominated people for many senior positions) but I don’t know if that is what is depressing R turnout. It is also clear that Trump himself is driving opposition turnout, and there are voters who may or might approve of his policies but can’t stand him and are not going to be motivated to turn out. This is not one or the other, it is both. Maybe after the November election we will have enough data to figure out the relative impact of each.
McConnell and Ryan may be horses but they are predictable, even if predictably disappointing. It is Trump who is the wild horse. He may leap the fence effortlessly or crash head on into it.
I told you what a good politician will do. Focus on local issues and don’t bring up trump. The republicans that have ran closest to trump, Pennsylvania and Alabama are examples, have lost thus far and those republicans that have ran on local issues have won, think Arizona and Georgia.
I just also mentioned that Democrats and Trump will not make it easy given their penchant for bringing Trump up.
Congressional leadership has “done Trump’s bidding” like Sir Humphrey Appleby.
Ryan realized he would be replaced if voters get to judge the House GOP and send in real fighters who know they must do what they promise. His job now appears to be to discredit the #Deplorables with a midterm defeat, so he can get his kind of Republican Party back as President after his governorship. Coaches who announce mid season that they are quitting at the end of the season get tossed by any team that actually intends to win a championship.
As to McConnell, the Obamacare repeal defeat was his doing. He saved Lisa Murkowski’s career when Alaska Republicans dumped her and she chose to run as an independent with Mitch’s public blessing. He did so to save his own power, as the Republican primary winner was Tea Party affiliated, not going to support Mitch and the old boys club. Mitch McConnell had a huge marker, and he did not play it because Lisa Murkowski voted just as he actually wanted her to vote. Now let him hurt Democrats election chances and really help Republicans by holding the Senate in session Monday morning through Saturday evening, at least, until every current nominee is voted up or down. That would show real seriousness and effective leadership voters could reward.
It’s okay if you say no.
So this is a win … but it should have been a bigger win! (or something)
We are in unchartered territory; anyone who thinks they can predict the future by looking to the past is a fool.
For good or for ill, Trump has changed everything.
Stop reading your history books and try to understand the potential that the future holds.
Those who forget the past are bound to repeat it.
Sounds like January 30, 1933.
That thousand year future died 12 years, three months later.
I don’t even pretend to understand a word of the above. (I don’t read science fiction.)
But I wish you well in your predictions. You’ll hear naught from me; for I understand that history … is history. Much of interest; much to be learned. But the future is oh, so much more interesting. And unknown to me.
Anyway, the phrase “those who forget the past are bound to repeat it” is best translated as:
“human nature is ever thus”
Personally speaking, I think we’ve got a President who understands human nature. Frankly, I think we’re in good hands.