So, We Won an Amazing Victory in Pennsylvania. What Is the Lesson?

[MineralMan]

It's simple. We can win, even in unlikely places.

So, are we taking that as encouragement?

Some are not. Some are posting that all is lost, and that we will inevitably lose. Right here on DU. To those people, I ask the following questions:

1. Where do you live?
2. Who is running in your districts for state and federal legislative and other offices?
3. What are you doing to help Democrats win?
4. What are your plans to help regain control of our government - local, state and federal?
5. If you have no useful answer, then, what is the alternative you suggest for the four questions above?

Giving up and wringing your hands is not an answer that accomplishes anything, everyone. Working to win is.

[njhoneybadger]

1. I'm confused Mineral Man we had a very encouraging win and now so much negativity.

[MineralMan]

2. Just think about it. Who benefits from naysaying?

The answer to that question is the answer to everything.

If someone is saying we can't or won't win, they are simply trying to discourage us from winning.

It is that simple. Naysayers are not on our side. They never have been and never will be.

[njhoneybadger]

3. But some have a fair amount of posts

[MineralMan]

4. So? Anyone can accumulate posts.

All you have to do is not break the rules. I have lots and lots of posts, too. The number of posts only indicates a willingness to post. Nothing else. It's irrelevant.

[njhoneybadger]

8. I think I've been a little naive

[fescuerescue]

24. I've never understood why people think post count is equal to credibility

All it does is train the opposition to make a bunch of neutral posts, then begin making divisive posts.

People forget that posts are free.

[MineralMan]

26. It's a common error in logic.

The number of posts a person has made is useless information. What that person said in the most recent post is far more important.

[Demsrule86]

35. I wasn't here then, But I was told that when trolls revealed themselves after Kerry lost that many

were well respected DU'ers with good post counts.

[Orsino]

22. I think I saw an MSM source cautioning that the Trump Effect...

...wouldn't necessarily translate to a Republican win.

Rather than acknowledging that the Trump suck is hurting them all over.

[mreilly]

5. "Some are posting that all is lost, and that we will inevitably lose"

... thank you for pointing this out. Without naming names, there are some posters here who seem to be here for one reason and one reason only: throwing a pity party and bemoaning our station in life.

Reading the posts by these people is literally like watching Bill Paxton in "Aliens" moaning "Game over, man! Game over!"

Over and over. Even after victories in Virginia, Alabama and Pennsylvania.

[Eliot Rosewater]

6. This is why I spend so much time talking about MATH

I know what we are up against.

We can win, we have to vote for ANY democrat ANYWHERE.

I also know there are posters on DU just like elsewhere who are russian agents, GOP assholes, etc.

[MineralMan]

7. Yes. If we turn out more voters in more places, we win.

It's a very simple equation.

GOTV!

[Orsino]

9. Do we have any data on turnout by party?

It's tempting to imagine depressed GOP turnout due to the stink of Trump, or to call this a blue wave. I suspect that both factors will be found to have been significant, but I want data.

[MineralMan]

10. Yes. Far more Democrats turned out compared to 2016

than Republicans. I don't have the numbers at hand, however. They've been posted several times. Turnout won that PA district.

[Orsino]

14. The net effect seems clear, but no stories seem to break down turnout by party.

I'm wondering which numbers grew more.

[MineralMan]

16. Updated: Both parties had lower turnouts than in 2016. That's normal.

Democrats turned out a much higher percentage, compared to 2016 than Republicans did. That won the election. I'll try to find the percentages and post them in this post as soon as I do.'

Lamb got about 78 percent of the votes that Hillary Clinton received in the district — but Saccone received about 52 percent of the votes Trump received. The result? A tie. A shift of 20 points toward the Democrats.

http://www.cbelmira.com/blog/what-the-pennsylvania-special-election-tells-us-about-the-democratic-turnout-surge/

[Orsino]

17. Huh.

I completely misunderstood, thinking I heard there was more turnout this time. That surprised me.

[MineralMan]

21. It was WHO turned out that was important.

I updated the post above, but here:

Lamb got about 78 percent of the votes that Hillary Clinton received in the district — but Saccone received about 52 percent of the votes Trump received. The result? A tie. A shift of 20 points toward the Democrats.

http://www.cbelmira.com/blog/what-the-pennsylvania-special-election-tells-us-about-the-democratic-turnout-surge/

Overall turnout of voters was down from 2016, as it always is in special elections. More Democrats turned out than Republicans. That's why we overcame Trump's 20% margin from 2016.

[Orsino]

27. This is awesome.

We can be pretty confident that the off-year Dem turnout dropped a lot less than the Republicans' did, though exit polling would have told the tale more clearly.

More troubling is the realization that there were only 228k votes cast in the district, compared to 350k in 2016. Dems support is hardened, or Trump sucks, just exactly enough to have tipped the race to Lamb. Turnout was critical, but it always is. 120,000 voters, or more, couldn't be bothered this time around.

[MineralMan]

28. Turnout for special elections will never equal presidential election turnouts.

Really, the turnout for that PA election was extraordinarily high for the type of election it was.

[Orsino]

29. I hate to just shrug and write off 120k votes in any election...

...but that is probably the most practical outlook.

[MineralMan]

31. Statistics don't lie.

Historical turnout data is evidence of reality. Expecting a different outcome isn't going to change that. However, in a low turnout election, GOTV can have a large effect than in elections with traditionally higher turnouts. That's why working very hard in midterm and special elections can be so effective.

Democrats have never learned that lesson very well, which is why Democratic turnout in mid-term and off-year elections is historically lower than Republican turnout. We need to fix that. We need to fix that especially in 2018. If we do, we will win back control of the House of Representatives and a number of state legislative houses. We can do that. We must do that.

[Orsino]

33. At this stage, then, we don't know what the hell the party did right...

...or if the other party is just faceplanting.

But Dems in PA-18 and beyond did enough, and they keep doing enough all over the place.

[MineralMan]

34. It worked, whatever it was.

Lots of Trump voters stayed home, that's certain. We can use that tendency in other elections. We just have to turn out our voters. That's the main goal.

Elections are only partly predictable. All we can do is to try to get as many voters on our side to the polls. We can rarely have any impact on voters on the other side.

[Wellstone ruled]

23. As you have said my friend,

getting your people to the polls is the bottom line. And for a off year Election,Mr,Lamb made it happen by getting his supporters to turn out for him.

Every District has it's own little nuance's and to win,you have to work those to your advantage.

[MineralMan]

25. Exactly. Which is why it is far more beneficial to work in your

local area than to worry about other areas. You can know what is needed where you are, but unlikely that you will understand the dynamics of some race elsewhere.

Work locally, and your impact is increased. Locally, an individual can make a difference.

[Demsrule86]

38. MM there is a poster here whom I saw over at JPR...trashing Hillary and saying he would vote for

Trump if it was close. I have no idea if he really did that ( could be a she). But not everyone here likes the Democratic Party ...and if you take note of the posts...you can pick them out pretty easily...not the ones who will argue you with you and just want Dems to succeed ...they just have a different method...but the other sort. They are here so beware people. I am extremely excited and believe we have good chance of turning over the House and maybe the Senate (long shot).

[mythology]

19. Not direct, but Lamb got 80% of Clinton's vote

Saccone got 53% of Trump's. Obviously not direct turnout by party, but probably generally indicative.

[Demsrule86]

36. A year and a half ago Trump won by 20 points...so did Bush and Romney...now they

lose the seat...they didn't even field a candidate the last two times...oh it's Trump OK...

[aikoaiko]

11. I dont see anyone saying all is lost - not that I read every post.

Your post like some others has a distasteful “you’re with us or against us” tone.

DUers should authentically speak their minds even if they have fears, concerns, or trouble seeing a win happen. (within the TOS of course)

We are moving in the right direction and suppression of anything but encouragement is foolish.

[Demsrule86]

37. I have seen that.

[Demsrule86]

39. There are trolls hiding in the ranks of 'those who speak their mind' I know for a fact

that we have a Republican with a sign on...he stalked me...I know you argue in good faith...enjoy our debates... but not all here are who they seem to be. We have to be careful.

[leftstreet]

12. I'm not seeing any 'all is lost' posts

Not that I'm able to read everything

[Old Vet]

20. I have NOT seen all is lost posts either, Although I understand what MM is saying......

[Sancho]

13. We learned a few things...

1.) if 79% of the Democrats vote (as reported on TV) vs 60% of the repubs...we will win

2.) smaller elections that are under the national watches are hard to "hack"; so the votes are counted more accurately (but in national elections and across lots of different systems; the Russians/repubs can still manipulate the results)

3.) there is a limit to how much money can influence an election - once the contest is saturated it's wasted $s

4.) there are still a bunch of Archie Bunkers out there who are sexist, racist, and uninformed, so tRump still has a following

[Orsino]

15. Is there a source for those numbers?

If things really broke that way, I'll hope that every Dem campaign can learn something.

[Sancho]

18. MSNBC verbally reported the % of registered voters...

I cannot vouch for the source. If I find something solid, I'll edit and add a link.

[gratuitous]

30. I believe eminent philosopher Homer Simpson said it best

At least, that's the message that a lot of people would like to peddle to Democrats, win or lose. Makes you wonder if they have some kind of hidden agenda.

[MineralMan]

32. Some people clearly have a hidden agenda.

We need to ignore all of that and just get to work. It's so simple, really.

[bpj62]

40. All politics are Local

Lamb won because he campaigned on issues that are still important to people in that part of the Country. He is pro union just like Tim Murphy was, he treaded lightly on second amendment issues because it doesn't play well in that area, he campaigned against the Trump tax cut, and he vowed to defend any efforts to cut Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. He is also for Obamacare which so many of our members failed to support in 2010. Lastly he is pro choice although he personally does not agree with abortion. For some reason that is a position that the purists in our party do not understand.

Frankly I am getting tired of hearing about how we can only run Democrats who are pure to our core beliefs. We are supposed to be the Big Tent Party but it sometimes feels like that isn't the case. We have to run the best candidate for that area and we have to fully support that candidate.

As for change in the leadership of our party, it will come through the election of democratic members to the House. New members will have new ideas and they will add a new voice that the current leadership will have to listen to.

I live in the Virginia 10th and I will be doing everything possible to ensure that Barbara Comstock is defeated this fall. I will also ensure that Tim Kaine is elected to a second term as Senator.