Althouse: "Top Democrats tell me that if they take back the House in November, a restoration of Speaker Nancy Pelosi is no longer guaranteed."

March 15, 2018

"Top Democrats tell me that if they take back the House in November, a restoration of Speaker Nancy Pelosi is no longer guaranteed."

"Conor Lamb, 33, won his U.S. House race in Pennsylvania this week after saying he wouldn't vote for her for leader — a new template for moderates."

Says Mike Allen at Axios.

I love the Conor Lamb effect. I am cheering it on. Conservative Democrats! Break up the old clods of power and give us something crumbly and fresh!

111 comments:

LYNNDH said...: Ha Ha Ha! Lamb will go to the alter of Pelosi and bow down.; 3/15/18, 9:33 AM
Jersey Fled said...: More BS that will be forgotten once the Democrats regain a majority.; 3/15/18, 9:33 AM
Nonapod said...: I love the Conor Lamb effect. I am cheering it on. Conservative Democrats! Break up the old clods of power and give us something crumbly and fresh!

Sure. Somehow I doubt this will happen. As an outsider looking in, it seems like the Democrat party is becoming much more left leaning rather than centrist, and this Conor Lamb dude is nothing more than an anomaly. I could be wrong of course, I often am. But to me, the Dems seem more interested in bring the hate to middle America than embracing it.; 3/15/18, 9:34 AM
Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...: You shouldn't be dipping into that new box of wine so early in the day.; 3/15/18, 9:35 AM
Big Mike said...: I think you are assuming something that is nowhere in evidence, Professor. Namely that Conor Lamb will act and vote any differently from your basic extreme leftist Democrat once he’s been in Washington for a short while.; 3/15/18, 9:35 AM
Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...: Do the Clintons still own the DNC?; 3/15/18, 9:36 AM
Unknown said...: sorry, there are just to many far leftists in the democrat party.

A vote for any democrat no matter how matter how centrist or right they say they are is a vote for the democrats radical positions because it is the leadership who will set the agenda not Jones of Alabama or....; 3/15/18, 9:37 AM
chickelit said...: “Send in the clods”; 3/15/18, 9:39 AM
dreams said...: He'll vote with the Dems just like all the supposedly conservative Dems always do. Remember not a single blue dog Democrat voted against Obamacare.; 3/15/18, 9:39 AM
Joe Biden, America's Putin said...: eh. Buncha big government tax hiking progressives hiding behind fake rhetoric. They all turn back to the far left eventually.; 3/15/18, 9:40 AM
Rob said...: Nancy Pelosi could use a restoration, by expert restorers. As the Godfather said to Bonasera, "I want you to use all your powers and all your skills."; 3/15/18, 9:40 AM
gspencer said...: "Conservative Democrats!"

Really? Like dry water; Orthodox Jewish Nazi; a left-handed sky hook; jumbo shrimp; an earth angel; an elevated subway,

Ya know, like things that don't exist,; 3/15/18, 9:41 AM
cubanbob said...: Assuming the Democrats actually pull it off, Pelosi will probably not be the speaker. She is too old and has too much baggage. However to believe that a "moderate" Democrat will become speaker is risible. The Democrat base is as Left or more so than Pelosi
and they will do whatever they can to prevent that. Besides every "moderate" Democrat runs as a nicer version of a Republican then votes the party line down the line. Just ask Manchin. A special election in a district that is union country and where the Democrats spent millions, ran a young veteran masquerading as a conservative against an inept Republican who was to replace a Republican who resigned due to his adultery with the Democrat winning by a few hundred votes isn't a major shift. What these elections have in common is Republicans self-sabotage.; 3/15/18, 9:42 AM
dreams said...: He pretended to be more like a Republican but he will toe the line and vote with the other Dems when he gets to Washington.; 3/15/18, 9:42 AM
stevew said...: I think I heard Perez correctly when he was on with Brett Baier last night, I was having dinner and chatting with my wife so only heard him in the background, but I think he was non-committal on the question of Pelosi continuing as Speaker should they win the House in November. Was also amused by his embrace of Lamb, who differs from the current mainstream Democrats on the core issues of guns and abortion. In response to a question about HRC's comments the other day in India, he asserted that Trump is POTUS and Democrats need to focus on advancing their agenda, winning back the Congressional majority, and thwarting Trump's agenda.

Struck me as wholly self-serving sales pitch, but was interesting to hear him say it all.

-sw; 3/15/18, 9:43 AM
Joe Biden, America's Putin said...: Part of it is that Nancy is old and losing her mind. Nobody wants to be associated with that.

Like all entrenched polls in the DC swamp, the older ones are hardest to get rid of, and they scare away voters. But nobody inside the party wants to be the first to say "it's time to retire". Dying in office seems to be the goal. cough - john McCain.; 3/15/18, 9:43 AM
WisRich said...: You think they'll vote to the right of Nancy? Ha. I doubt it.; 3/15/18, 9:45 AM
Joe Biden, America's Putin said...: gspencer - LOL.; 3/15/18, 9:45 AM
Joe Biden, America's Putin said...: The GOp could use some younger fresher candidates.; 3/15/18, 9:46 AM
tim in vermont said...: It’s a lie, of course it’s guaranteed, but they can’t win on their real plans.

Did Lamb run on impeachment, for example?; 3/15/18, 9:47 AM
Curious George said...: "I love the Conor Lamb effect. I am cheering it on. Conservative Democrats! Break up the old clods of power and give us something crumbly and fresh!"

Looks like we will be needing a Conor Lamb Delusion Syndrome tag.; 3/15/18, 9:50 AM
rhhardin said...: God does not play nice.

- Einstein; 3/15/18, 9:51 AM
Drago said...: "Top Democrats tell me that if they take back the House in November, a restoration of Speaker Nancy Pelosi is no longer guaranteed."

2009: Democrats told me that if they took back the House and passed Obamacare that abortion would not be funded and illegals would not qualify for benefits.

....psssssst, they're lying.....; 3/15/18, 9:51 AM
AZ Bob said...: Pro-life, pro-gun, pro-Trump tax cuts, etc., are not typical Democrat views.; 3/15/18, 9:52 AM
Joe Biden, America's Putin said...: "They can't win on their real plans." Really, that's all.

D platform with always be "investment!" or Tax-rape the masses while they line their own pockets and make sure government bureaucratic flunkies are given big juicy early retirements with big juicy tax payer funded pensions.; 3/15/18, 9:52 AM
Chuck said...: He'll vote with the Dems just like all the supposedly conservative Dems always do. Remember not a single blue dog Democrat voted against Obamacare.

Respectfully, Althouse, I think your readers have this right. For his part, President Trump said the same thing last Saturday when he was in western Pennsylvania. "He [Lamb] can say all he wants... is no way he's voting for us. Ever, ever."; 3/15/18, 9:53 AM
Drago said...: The House could use a Jon Tester "conservative" Democrat.....who votes with Chuck Schumer about 100% of the time (except when there are enough votes to allow him to vote his "conservative conscience")

LOL; 3/15/18, 9:53 AM
Joe Biden, America's Putin said...: Will Andrew McCabe hang on long enough to see his big juicy tax payer funded pension?; 3/15/18, 9:54 AM
rcocean said...: LOL. Another "conservative Democrat" who'll NOT vote for Pelosi. He just needs to get another 120 votes - and he might get rid of her. Till then, its just meaningless blather.

BTW, the US Senate of full of Red state Democrats, who campaign as "Moderates" every six years and then vote the party line with Chuck Schumer.

Word are wind = campaign promises of "moderate" Democrats.; 3/15/18, 9:57 AM
Lewis Wetzel said...: There are two patterns for choosing a Speaker.
1- Pick a speaker from a mixed district. That will ensure that your party will not drift too far from the center & so help your party remain centrist. But in a mixed district your speaker may be vulnerable to losing his or her seat.
Tom Foley, the Democratic speaker prior to Pelosi, lost his seat to a Republican in 1992.

2-Pick a speaker from a safe district. No problem with him/her losing the seat, but your party starts moving to the fringes.

In 2016, Paul Ryan won 65% the vote in his district. Nancy Pelosi won her district by 81%; 3/15/18, 10:00 AM
tim in vermont said...: It’s an old playbook. Here is how it played out in a similar district in Upstate New York.

Last year [2009-, [Democratic] Congressman Scott Murphy held many town halls across the district he represents in Congress. He referred to them as “Congress on your corner” events. They were announced well in advance and generally took place outside. Typically he had one each weekday and in some cases, held multiple events in the same day. They were well attended by people of all walks of life and varying political viewpoints. Both sides were generally respectful of each other and the Congressman took questions from people of a variety of viewpoints.

What a difference a year makes. In 2010, Scott Murphy flip flopped and supported the horrific ObamaCare legislation, along with various other contentious bills such as the so-called “financial reform” bill, the DISCLOSE Act, and the second “stimulus” bill. This August, he has not held any general town halls for people of all walks of life with notice well in advance. - Red State

Of course it had a happy ending, but not after much damage was done:

Matthew Scott Murphy is an American entrepreneur and a former U.S. Representative for NY's 20, having served a portion of one term from April 2009 until January 2011. He is a member of the Democratic Party. He was defeated in his attempt to attain election to a full term on November 2, 2010.

Somebody should point out Scott Murphy’s “Martyr to Obamacare” career the Democrats contrived for him to Lamb.; 3/15/18, 10:00 AM
Joe Biden, America's Putin said...: All democrats tow the line. They never step out of line.; 3/15/18, 10:01 AM
tim in vermont said...: They can pick Hillary for Speaker, it’s not against the rules, impeach and remove Trump and Pence as an accessory to treason, and bingo! Justice!; 3/15/18, 10:01 AM
Bob Boyd said...: Tim in Vermont said..."Did Lamb run on impeachment, for example?"

No.
Lamb never mentioned Trump during his campaign. The Union voters in his district still love Trump. If he'd have spoken against Trump, he'd have lost.
I totally agree with your cynicism about Lamb.
And even if he's sincere, he faces a primary election where he'll have to run against progressives. Will the Dem voters, many of who are motivated by hating Trump, support a winner or their "Resistance"?; 3/15/18, 10:02 AM
Bob Boyd said...: AZ Bob said...
"Pro-life, pro-gun, pro-Trump tax cuts, etc., are not typical Democrat views."

Lamb is not pro-life. He opposes all restrictions on abortion.
But he did say he was personally against abortion. I find that interesting because it has been a while since you heard a Democrat who was willing to even say that. It used to be fairly common before the purge of moderates from the party.

Lamb was campaigning for his specific district, not for a national audience. He was also aspirational, not just oppositional. Which ever party learns these lessons first and best will prevail going forward, IMHO.; 3/15/18, 10:16 AM
MadisonMan said...: Top Democrats figure out what (ahem) garners votes. (or more precisely, what helps stem the bleeding of votes to Independents) Says words to that effect.

Top Democrats decide to forget everything in mid-November.; 3/15/18, 10:16 AM
MadisonMan said...: Question for Democrats running for the House:

Will actively campaign against Nancy Pelosi for Speaker is you are elected?

Will you resign if you go back on that pledge?; 3/15/18, 10:17 AM
The Cracker Emcee Refulgent said...: Fraud has to be seen to be understood by most voters. So we must go through the unchanging (or ever changing) cycle. The Donks take back the House in 2018, and inevitably overstep, guaranteeing Trump's re-election and a GOP majority in 2020. Wash, rinse, repeat. Dem extremism and GOP cowardice have accelerated the cycle of change, but otherwise nothing new.; 3/15/18, 10:23 AM
stever said...: "please ignore what I do and how I vote, just know that I'll cross her next January" Yeah right.; 3/15/18, 10:24 AM
mudpuppy said...: Lamb may very well vote as a conservative. What will never happen is Dem leadership allowing enough conservatives to make a difference in their far left agenda.; 3/15/18, 10:26 AM
Chuck said...: Here's a really interesting (and dubious) column by Amber Phillips for WaPo; her thesis is, Conor Lamb didn't run as a "Trump Democrat." She says that he ran as a conservative Democrat. She argues:

Lamb didn’t run as a Republican, as a conservative, or as a Trumpian candidate.
Lamb absolutely ran as a conservative Democrat, but that is far from being an actual conservative. To wit:
Lamb wants to keep Obamacare in place. His opponent, Rick Saccone, wants it repealed.
Lamb blasted the GOP tax plan as “giveaway” to the rich. His opponent supports the tax plan.
Lamb said he personally opposes abortion but that he doesn't think the right to have one should be taken away. His opponent flatly opposes abortion rights.
Lamb wants to strengthen background checks for gun sales, although he doesn't think there should be new restrictions on guns.
Lamb supports Trump's tariffs on steel and aluminum, even though GOP leaders like Ryan oppose them.

But those are all mostly "Trump" positions. Yeah, Trump hates Obamacare. He hates Obama, mostly. But Trump keeps talking shit about how we have to cover everybody, we have to do it. And how he won't cut entitlements, or sign a bill that is "too mean." And in the past, there is Trump admiring the Canadian and Scottish single-payer systems.

And there was Trump saying that he was pro-choice.

And there was Trump in support of the "assault" weapons ban in the 1990's. And more recently, Trump making cracks about Pat Toomey and Senate Republicans being "afraid of the NRA"(?!)

And of course Trump campaigned on a tax "reform" plan (in Pennsylvania, he said he hated the term "reform" and he insisted on "Cuts, cuts, cuts, cuts") that he said that his wealthy friends would hate.

And on tariffs, I have no idea what the point was, that Amber Phillips was trying to make. Because she successfully showed that Conor Lamb was like Trump, and not like a conservative. Trumpians like the steel and aluminum tariffs. Conservatives hate them. Lamb sided with Trump.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I think that Lamb really did campaign like Trump. Like most of you, I think it's all mostly a lie and that Lamb will vote like the other House Dems once he is sworn in. Unlike most of you, I think Trump's a massive liar too, just like Lamb. Liars, winning elections by lying to the voters.

Here is the link to the just-posted column:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2018/03/15/say-it-with-me-donald-trump-and-paul-ryan-conor-lamb-did-not-run-as-a-conservative/?utm_term=.e51ab26f9632; 3/15/18, 10:26 AM
buwaya said...: Its a trap, or rather, a ruse de guerre. The Democrats did the same in 2006, running pseudo conservative candidates in the appropriate constituencies in order to take back the house.

But every one of these was a bought man. That can't be helped, because they have a near-unique power to reward people, as they control so much. They tempt, and succeed, because they really can offer the world.

The ideological mummery was just that. It led to no change in policy direction, and more important, absolutely no change in the institutions of power. More, it just added another layer of protection to their expansion.; 3/15/18, 10:27 AM
buwaya said...: And Pelosi, like most individuals, is irrelevant.
A replacement will make no difference on matters of policy direction and the structure of power. The change, should it come, is strictly tactical, to improve Democratic party PR.

People like to personalize, and that is always a mistake.; 3/15/18, 10:32 AM
Yancey Ward said...: I think it very likely that Pelosi will announce her leaving of the minority leader before the election, but there is no way a moderate Democrat will take her place at the head of the House Democrats- that is a fantasy. Even if all the new Democratic members were Conor Lamb clones, the House Democrats are way to the left of Lamb's stated positions- the new leader will come from that cohort, no doubt whatsoever.; 3/15/18, 10:32 AM
mockturtle said...: These 'New Democrats' are holding out this hope to voters like Lucy holding the football for Charlie Brown.; 3/15/18, 10:33 AM
MountainMan said...: @buwaya - You are correct. And I think a lot of those stealth candidates were gone by 2014.; 3/15/18, 10:37 AM
tcrosse said...: Whither Pelosi ? Follow the Money.; 3/15/18, 10:38 AM
buwaya said...: A "moderate Democrat" is an irrelevant concept, as also "liberal Democrat" and etc.

Any ideological alignment ascribed to a modern politician, with only a very few exceptions, is a matter of role-playing, or of costuming, better put. What really matters is who they are working for.; 3/15/18, 10:39 AM
Drago said...: Trump delivered 64% of the Heritage Foundation agenda in his first year.

Trump's first year was more conservative than Reagans.

No wonder LLR Chuck is upset. His dem/lefty allies took it on the chin in 2017.; 3/15/18, 10:42 AM
Tommy Duncan said...: My local congressman, Tim Walz (MN-1) dusts off his Army Reserve uniform for 2 months every election cycle and becomes a conservative. Then he flies back to Washington and votes the party line. There is no reason to suppose Lamb will be any different.; 3/15/18, 10:43 AM
Inga...Allie Oop said...: News flash. Conor Lamb is no Trump.; 3/15/18, 10:47 AM
Drago said...: Tommy Duncan: "There is no reason to suppose Lamb will be any different."

Nonsense. According to LLR Chuck, Trump and Lamb are exactly alike!

That's why Trump is governing more conservatively than Reagan....er....wait...that blows up that thesis, doesn't it?

Gee, LLR Chuck exposed as a dem narrative boosting hack again. How does that keep happening?

Darn it!; 3/15/18, 10:47 AM
Drago said...: Golden dossier Inga: "News flash. Conor Lamb is no Trump."

True.

Trump will never vote for Pelosi to be speaker of the House.; 3/15/18, 10:48 AM
GRW3 said...: The problem is they, the DNC, don't have Rahm Emmanuel to execute such a plan, like he did in 2006. I was impressed by his deftness in that campaign. They surely messed up by denying him a place in the Democratic House Leadership. They don't have Rahm and they don't have any money. All the money is going independently to the most hyper partisan. This demonstration will not affect the true believers. I think they will miss opportunities the same way the Republicans did when the TEA party nominated loons and witches.; 3/15/18, 10:51 AM
tim in vermont said...: On November 7, 2009, Murphy voted against the Affordable Care Act.[18] Murphy opposed the Stupak Amendment which proposed to restrict federal funding and subsidies for plans that cover elective abortion.[19]

In March 2010, Murphy supported the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.[20]

Wikipedia does not note that he had campaigned against the ACA, for some reason....; 3/15/18, 10:52 AM
tim in vermont said...: News flash. Conor Lamb is no Trump.

I am not really sure about that, but arguendo, let’s say it’s true. He sure kept that a secret in the campaign, but we all know he will have more flexibility after the election.; 3/15/18, 10:54 AM
tim in vermont said...: Dems have no shot at the Senate, BTW, so what are they going to do? Impeach Trump? For what? Beating Hillary? Even the Democrats can see now what we have been telling them for decades about the tone deaf sleazebag.; 3/15/18, 10:55 AM
buwaya said...: I understand that Lamb was funded 5:1 against his opponent.

The Democrats will have plenty of money, the DNC is just one not too useful (currently) structure through which this can be organized. I expect by November there will have been a record amount spent on a US election.; 3/15/18, 10:56 AM
buwaya said...: And as a general comment, the lesson is not yet learned:

You cannot be too paranoid.; 3/15/18, 10:59 AM
ga6 said...: Conor will be bowing at the feet of Kamala, Corey and Shiff as soon as the checks fro the S and S boys clear...; 3/15/18, 11:01 AM
Nonapod said...: What really matters is who they are working for.

And the would be puppet masters are also deeply flawed and foolish. Absolute control is an illusion. If it wasn't, Donald Trump would never have been allowed to become president. There will always be things that are outside the purview of the powerful. There will always be unpredictable events, October surprises, black swans, whatever. And that's generally for the best. How much money was spent to elect Hillary Clinton all told?; 3/15/18, 11:01 AM
bagoh20 said...: If you can't beat the right, water it down with fakes. The country is so far left already that it takes a pretty solid right wing pressure to have any chance at real reform, as we are finally seeing with Trump.

I can't stand the left and where Democrats have gone, but the more radical they are, the more likely they lose and real reformers to win. Conservative Democrats will continue to pull the country left. That's how we got so far left in the first place.

The neurosis of the left is that's it's never satisfied with how far left it is. It always pushes to go father, and even conservative Democrats give in eventually. Hell even most Republicans do. It's like when you have a toddler constantly screaming for what he wants. You don't want him to have it, becuase you know it's bad for you both, but eventually you realize it's the only way to shut him up - at least for now, and tomorrow you reinforce it again. He ends up spoiled, and you end up helpless.; 3/15/18, 11:07 AM
glenn said...: If it’s not Pelosi it’ll be somebody just like her. And Connor will get right in line or his re-election funding will disappear.; 3/15/18, 11:10 AM
Amadeus 48 said...: The last time the Dems did this (2006-2010) they gave us Obamacare and got voted out of office leaving a pile of poop behind them. I don’t think those crumbly, fresh clods are mud, Althouse.

Any day the Dems are in power is a bad day for America. Pelosi? Puh-lease no! Schumer? Scheisskopf! Ellison? Allahu akbar! Biden? If I only had a brain! Warren? Sham Cherokee speaks with forked tongue. Kamala Harris? Willie Davis’s girl gone wild!, etc.; 3/15/18, 11:11 AM
Jersey Fled said...: I'm predicting that Maxine Waters will be the next speaker if the Dems win the House.

Remenber: You heard it here first!; 3/15/18, 11:16 AM
My name goes here. said...: If the democrats were smart they would replace Nancy Pelosi now. She is, imho, too toxic to help the democrats. The smart move would be to replace her with a new Democrat leader now, someone that is a fresh face, vibrant, well spoken, and energetic.

The fact that they do not replace Pelosi now means that they do not have anyone that meets those criteria or the powers that be have already decided that Nancy gets to stay.

If the democrats really were on top of it, if they win the house, they would make Hillary speaker. No rule prevents it. Of course this supposes that the democrats in the House really like Hillary.; 3/15/18, 11:16 AM
buwaya said...: Trump was elected through an error, true.
Thats the route such people as Trump take to power, to find weaknesses that are not obvious to the PTB, and exploit them.

Such as, in this case, non traditional media and the dissatisfactions of the "deplorables". Usually these weaknesses occur under chaotic circumstances or in decadent societies. In the case of the US, it is certainly decadence.

This particular set of weaknesses is well on its way to being mitigated however, and if the will of the people (whoever they are by then) is to manifest again it will be by some other route. One of the phenomena of decadence is that of the PTB progressively restricting liberty, in order to head off revolts. The classic model is the late Roman Empire, notably under Diocletian. There are already powerful institutions of ideological control in the US, and these are becoming much more stringent. This can only be expected to increase. At the same time the channels of samizdat are being closed off.

This will, I predict, become total under a new Democratic executive, which will license communications monopolies on the internet, and will require or turn a blind eye to explicit ideological control of "hate speech".; 3/15/18, 11:18 AM
Amadeus 48 said...: Where is America’s Politico? I miss that confident voice that was wrong about everything. When he pronounced on something you could be sure it wasn’t going to happen.

The GOP has a long way to go to hold the House this time. AP could perhaps get one right.; 3/15/18, 11:19 AM
stever said...: @Jersey Fled be still my beating heart; 3/15/18, 11:22 AM
Drago said...: Amadeus 48: "Where is America’s Politico? I miss that confident voice that was wrong about everything."

He's busy constructing detailed notes for future use from LLR Chucks posts.; 3/15/18, 11:23 AM
Comanche Voter said...: "Clods of Power"? Break them up and give us something crumbly and fresh?

That's what you do with compost (consisting of decayed vegetable matter) in the spring. Does Conor Lamb represent "Springtime For The Democrats"?

Well there is a lot of decayed vegetable matter between the ears of Nancy Pelosi and her posse.; 3/15/18, 11:51 AM
chuck said...: > Conservative Democrats!

Let's hope, but we will see. It seems that Trump voters are not necessarily Republican voters.; 3/15/18, 11:52 AM
tim in vermont said...: Not a problem! Dems have it all sorted!

Rep. Joe Crowley (D-N.Y.), chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, said it´s "sexist" for Republicans to make House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) an issue in their campaigns."This election was not about Nancy Pelosi,"; 3/15/18, 12:04 PM
Sebastian said...: "I love the Conor Lamb effect."

Would that be like the Bart Stupak effect, or the Max Cleland effect, or the Jim Webb effect?

Keep hope alive.; 3/15/18, 12:16 PM
Michael K said...: They surely messed up by denying him a place in the Democratic House Leadership. They don't have Rahm and they don't have any money

Yes, he was much better as a Congress insider than a Mayor who actually has to do something about stuff like snowstorms and trash pickup.

Nancy Pelosi has the keys to the money machine.

I'm predicting that Maxine Waters will be the next speaker if the Dems win the House.

I prefer Keith Ellison. He's not as black, or as crazy, as Maxine.

One of the phenomena of decadence is that of the PTB progressively restricting liberty, in order to head off revolts.

Such as the march of the school children trying to ban guns.

Remington is almost bankrupt as they probably counted on Hillary winning and keeping gun sales humming.

I just might buy another gun this week.; 3/15/18, 12:22 PM
Michael K said...: " or the Jim Webb effect?"

Jim Webb was just in the wrong party, probably because he hates Bush.

He had a point. I just read his book. It almost predicts Trump but from 2004,; 3/15/18, 12:24 PM
Birkel said...: Althouse pre-missed Obama.
I'm going to pre-miss conservative Democrats.; 3/15/18, 1:46 PM
Howard said...: Trump has saved the future for the Democratic Party! MAGA; 3/15/18, 1:51 PM
Drago said...: Howard: "Trump has saved the future for the Democratic Party! MAGA"

The never-ending pendulum swing of American politics.

The problem for the Democrats began in late 2008 when they came to believe that they would never lose another national election because the arc of history was complete.

Which is why they had no problem unleashing the power of the federal bureaucracy on their opponents.

Why not? They by and large own the mass culture and the MSM is completely in their pocket. Quite frankly, it was a reasonable assumption at that time on their part that they would never be accountable for any transgression ever again.; 3/15/18, 2:15 PM
n.n said...: That's fine. Principles before principals... and they're off!; 3/15/18, 2:23 PM
Kevin said...: Where is Chuck's inevitable comment about how Connor Lamb didn't really run a pro-Trump campaign after all?

Oh wait, found it.; 3/15/18, 2:59 PM
Howard said...: Drago: The pendulum shifts with gravitational forces, not by hot winds spewed by talkshow hosts. The democrats bet the farm on globalism and urbanization demographic shifts after the election of Bubba in 1992 when went on to abandoned the working class. The 2008 shift to Obama's Great Society was 100% a result of the horrendously stupid invasion of Iraq and the failure of neocon nation-building in the Islamic underbelly of Asia combined with the mortgage meltdown. Obamacare cost the democrats congress and Hillary cost them the Whitehouse.; 3/15/18, 3:07 PM
Chuck said...: Kevin said...
Where is Chuck's inevitable comment about how Connor Lamb didn't really run a pro-Trump campaign after all?

Oh wait, found it.

When you found it, you really should have read it.

Because you'd have found out that Amber Philips of the Washington Post says in her column that Lamb didn't really run a pro-Trump campaign. I posted a link to that column; and then argued that Lamb really did run a largely Trumpist campaign.

Not that it pleased me. I wasn't much rooting for Lamb, as a Trumpist or not. If a Democrat comes along and says, "My fellow Democrats, I know how much you hate Trump, but in this swing district that has recently been locked down by Republicans, we'll need the votes of some Republicans who are nearly as disaffected with Trump as you are. So I am going to promise them that I will vote their way on all of the big things that they require of me; taxes, the budget, healthcare reform, guns, etc. But if I have the opportunity to vote to impeach Trump, I'll do that, and they know it, and they will give me their votes with that understanding." That Democrat could be the first Democrat I have voted for in my adult memory.

And in fact, that was what interested me so much. Lamb allied himself with Trump, more than Pelosi! He said he'd try to find a way to work with Trump. But that he'd vote against Pelosi for House leadership.; 3/15/18, 3:25 PM
Birkel said...: Chuck loves Liar Lamb.
Birds of a feather.

Why are fopdoodles so enamored of Leftist liars?; 3/15/18, 3:55 PM
Drago said...: Vichy Chuck: "Because you'd have found out that Amber Philips of the Washington Post says in her column that Lamb didn't really run a pro-Trump campaign."

If its in the Washington Post it is by definition The Truth to LLR Chuck.

Unexpectedly.

If its a Durbin quote in the Post it is as if God has made a pronouncement to Chuck.; 3/15/18, 3:58 PM
Drago said...: Its nice when mobys completely drop the mask.; 3/15/18, 4:09 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: I love the Conor Lamb effect. I am cheering it on. Conservative Democrats! Break up the old clods of power and give us something crumbly and fresh!

Um, there's nothing fresh about conservative. And there've been conservative Democrats forever. It's how the Wilson and FDR coalitions held - by keeping the conservative, Southern segregationist Democrats in the mix. The ones who bolted to the Republicans after LBJ.; 3/15/18, 6:06 PM
Michael K said...: "combined with the mortgage meltdown. "

I have to give credit to the Democrats and their media allies for blaming Bush for 2008.

It was an amazing feat of blame shifting equivalent to Chamberlain blaming Churchill for Munich.

Bush people were testifying every week about the mortgage risks of "liar loans."

Barney Frank even wrote the legislation that was supposed to fix it. That was the equivalent of Admiral Stark writing the solution to Pearl Harbor.

Nice trick.; 3/15/18, 6:09 PM
Drago said...: TTR: "The ones who bolted to the Republicans after LBJ."

Demostrably false.

Laughably so really.

Every southern statehouse would have immediately turned republican overnight.

But they didnt.

Now, 30 to 40 years later those states did flip after a tremendous influx of voters from other states and big business moved in to take advantage of the business climate.; 3/15/18, 6:14 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: It's false for you to demand that a political trend that took 12 years should have occurred "overnight."

By 1980 the national trend was complete and then continued on at the state level over the course of the next ten or so years as congressional representation changed to match.

State political machines are/were harder to change - esp. in the south but eventually did. Southern states were not in play the same way nationally after Reagan, even if they did take some time giving George Wallace and then Georgian Jimmy Carter a chance.

Bill Clinton and local political heir Al Gore won only their home states and one state surrounding them and benefitted in 1992 from a strong third party challenge that took votes away from Bush. That's not what you call a hold on the South, or even a competitive run. That was a retreat that required conservative Democrats (Clinton was "advised" by Republican Dick Morris and broke through in 1992 only after berating a black female rap artist). His administration might've ignited the right-wing hate machine and a congressional midterm wave but I think they hated him for his success. The administration whose principal achievements were NAFTA, DOMA, crime bill, welfare "reform" and a repeal of Glass-Steagall is not centrist, let alone left-wing. The only thing left wing about Bill Clinton was his meaningless diversity jargon. The policies were all right wing.; 3/15/18, 6:34 PM
Michael K said...: Now, 30 to 40 years later those states did flip after a tremendous influx of voters from other states and big business moved in to take advantage of the business climate.

It was air conditioning. Carrier changed the South,; 3/15/18, 7:30 PM
Drago said...: TTR: "It's false for you to demand that a political trend that took 12 years should have occurred "overnight."

12 years.

LOL

Republicans didn't win statehouses until the 1990's/00's.

On a national level, are you really arguing that the lefties putting in stupid far left candidates like McGovern really represents a localized Southern racist vote for republicans when the republican wins almost all 50 states?!

Hilarious.

Let me guess: the Reagan 49 state landslide against Mondale was the "southern strategy" coming to fruition!

Too funny.

Republicans didn't take both chambers in Alabama until 2010!!!

Tennessee and all the other southern state party control stats are very similar.

We aren't talking 12 years here. We're talking a generation, with a whole lotta migration from other parts of the country tossed in.; 3/15/18, 8:23 PM
Drago said...: Take Texas as an example. The suburbs, full of transplants and migrants and younger voters, swung the state to the republicans.

Republicans didn't win the Governorship until '94.
Republicans didn't win the State Senate until '96.
Republicans didn't win the State House until 2002!

But yeah, it all REALLY happened from right after 1964....wink wink....; 3/15/18, 8:27 PM
Drago said...: Christ on a cracker, Arkansas didn't get a Republican controlled house and senate until 2012!

But hey, Civil Rights Act of 1964 really swung those votes! The voters just didn't realize they were actual republicans until 50 years later!

Well, I guess folks get a wee bit forgetful in the South....; 3/15/18, 8:30 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: Yeah, so some of them are slow thinkers - just like you. Doesn't change the fact that the South was no longer competitive nationally after 1976 - when running one of its "native sons." The rest of what you said was just cackle and blabber. Kind of like listening to Hillary Clinton. What a revelation: The land of Boss Hogg is slow to transition.

Texas is Southwest not Southeast "South" and Alabama can't figure out how to reduce its constitution to something less than 890 amendments. And some of these states took more than 120 years to ratify the 13th - 15th amendments.

The 1984 election was not the same as the 1980 election.

Either respond to what I'm saying or don't bother responding.; 3/15/18, 8:50 PM
Birkel said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 3/15/18, 8:58 PM
Birkel said...: Democrats lose 44 and then 49 states and that proves something about the South.

But miraculously it only tells something about the South that Democrats really wish were true.

Confirmation bias, much?; 3/15/18, 8:59 PM
Birkel said...: Two generations is the time it takes old Democrats to die, replaced by Republicans who never knew segregation.

The South is more integrated than any other region of the country.

Leftists love their Big Lies, just like Stalin.; 3/15/18, 9:06 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: It's always great when someone who has as much difficulty reading as Birkel does goes on about leftists, lies and Stalin. If it were someone who could actually string two thoughts together babbling like that then I might worry.; 3/15/18, 9:18 PM
richard mcenroe said...: Michael Lamb hasn't even voted on one issue yet. Once he's sworn in look for him to turn hard left and dive like a tardy kamikaze...; 3/15/18, 9:34 PM
Drago said...: TTR: "Yeah, so some of them are slow thinkers - just like you. Doesn't change the fact that the South was no longer competitive nationally after 1976"

LOL

Well, all those democrats controlling the mechanisms of ALL the southern states up through the 90's would find that amusing.

The democrats had problems at the national level after 1976 EVERYWHERE across the country.

But you want to pretend it was just the south. Reagan won 44 states and then 49 states.

I guess those voters in Massachusetts and New York and California and just about everywhere else sure knew how to respond to those racist dog whistles!!; 3/15/18, 9:51 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: Here's a fun drinking game:

For how many consecutive comments in a row would it be possible for Drago to mistake federal elections (i.e. a state's vote in a federal election) with what happened in state elections?

I say he can probably go at least five more comments not figuring that difference out.

MA, NY and CA have either populations, population densities and/or infrastructure or cultural exports that make the right-wing hate-your-neighbor-and/or-let-him-starve philosophy not viable there for the most part. Plus they already have a hell of a lot more wealth than the south and other regions have so shilling to billionaires and the social hierarchies that captivate the right is a go-nowhere politics for them.

If the south wants to stop taking the federal dollars that we pay more of that's fine by me. And that includes their war machine bases.

Hopefully those last two paragraphs were enough to distract you from your unrestrained impulse to keep carrying on like a lobotomized subject about the alleged, imaginary strength of Democrats running on tickets for federal office in the south.; 3/15/18, 10:00 PM
Drago said...: TTR: "For how many consecutive comments in a row would it be possible for Drago to mistake federal elections (i.e. a state's vote in a federal election) with what happened in state elections?"

LOL

I clearly differentiated the national and state implications and addressed both.

I apologize for my completeness.

To understand what is happening electorally within a state you need to examine both the federal and state elections.

You're welcome.; 3/15/18, 10:13 PM
Rich Vail said...: Sorry Anne, blue dog dems, have been done to death. They ALL VOTED straight path lines when the dnc leadership required it... and they rightfully got hammered out of office in 2010 by their constituents...history will repeat itself.; 3/15/18, 10:15 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: To understand what is happening electorally within a state you need to examine both the federal and state elections.

Seems like what you did was to confuse them.

It's easier for a party in power in a state to sway that state's vote in a non-federal election due to its power over the local machine. Harder to do in that state's federal election. All politics is local. Try thinking for a change.

For whatever reason - this or some other - the south obviously felt more "Republican" on national matters before their local representation changed to match. If you think that Ronald Reagan's "welfare queens" comments etc. worked against rather than for that transition then say so.

What local matters do you think made Reagan attractive enough to southern voters before they were able to change their legislatures to match his party? How did Republican party platforms change from 1976 to 1994?

I'll hum a Jeopardy tune while you work that one out.; 3/15/18, 10:47 PM
Drago said...: TTR: "Seems like what you did was to confuse them."

Nope.

Clearly delineated each time.; 3/15/18, 11:55 PM
Drago said...: TTR: "For whatever reason - this or some other - the south obviously felt more "Republican" on national matters before their local representation changed to match."

When a candidate wins 44 states and then 4 years later wins 49 states (49!), followed by his VP winning 40 states, it is clear that the entire nation was feeling more republican on national matters.

It's clear the South agreed with the entire rest of the nation that Reagan was far preferable to Carter and then to Mondale and that HW was far preferable to Massachusettsian..er...ite...oid...something Dukakis.; 3/16/18, 12:00 AM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: When a candidate wins 44 states and then 4 years later wins 49 states (49!), followed by his VP winning 40 states, it is clear that the entire nation was feeling more republican on national matters.

So including the South. A trend that remained there even after it stopped being the case everywhere else.

So obviously your claim that they hadn't transitioned to the Republicans during this time is bogus.

Did his "welfare queens" comment help or hurt?

What kept the south in Democratic hands in 1964 that didn't in 1994?

Why was Lee Atwater retained as a political consultant for the most successful politicians if he was wrong?

Keep slithering around the point you keep evading. Obviously there's something you're trying to hide.; 3/16/18, 12:32 AM
Amadeus 48 said...: Number of southern legislatures controlled by GOP after 1992 elections (after eight years of Nixon/Ford, eight years of Reagan, and four years of HW Bush: 1 (up from 0 in 1990). The south became Republican territory in the 1994 elections. It was Hillarycare 30 years after 1964 that sent southerners away from their ancestral loyalty to the Democratic Party, a process that was completed in 2010, after Obamacare.

The Dems have never been honest about what cost them the south--it was collectivism, not racism. They became the party of robbing selected Peter to pay collective Paul, as Kipling put it.

Sad.; 3/16/18, 6:11 AM
Birkel said...: Amadeus 48,
I must disagree. It was the dying of old Democrats who were then replaced by Republicans that led the South into local Republican control. The Democrats who supported FDR in 1944 and LBJ in 1964 passed away, as these things tend to go, and Southern Democrats tend not to vote like Northern Democrats do, after death.

TTR must have his myth. Every data point must be misconstrued as part of his confirmation bias. Part of the reason, surely, is to otherize Southerners and thereby elevate his own standing in his own mind. The ability to dehumanize members of an entire region is valuable. Just as Southern Democrats devalued blacks three generations ago, North Democrats devalue Southerners. The motivation is the same: power.

I don't begrudge the need of TTR and other Democrats to hold some people as worthless. Their wrongness creates their inability to appeal to the deplorables. And we should all be grateful for their incompetencies.; 3/16/18, 9:17 AM
hstad said...: AA, I question your thoughts here? Lamb will occupy this seat for 8 months. By DC standards, he won't even have the opportunity to find the Men's restroom (or "Whatever" they call it today). He will need to gear up to run another campaign, you really think he'll have time to cast any consequential votes - LOL! AA, you got suckered in by the MSM propoganda, driven by the DNC. BTW, did he win? Or are the Republicans not running a recount? Actually - who cares?; 3/17/18, 1:48 PM