There was such a huge shift in PA18 because they had the right candidate. That's the lesson.

[LBM20]

Sure, almost any Dem would have done better, but not nearly as well as Lamb unless he/she, like Lamb, was the right fit for the district. Lamb is a former marine, social moderate to conservative, and an economic populist. He is also an impressive and compelling figure. Young. Smart. Exudes honesty, integrity, and character. He talked the bread and butter issues in a big way, and defined himself as a candidate with an independent bent. He stayed close to the issues of concern to the district and away from national party politics.

So what this tells us is that we can't just expect to run anyone in these red and purple districts and expect to just win in the fall because of Trump. We need the right candidates. Those who fit the districts and run good solid compelling campaigns.

Ideological purity is a death knell. Ya gotta have a big tent to compete effectively everywhere in such a diverse country.

(Yes, a very strong groundgame is also very important. But if you aren't selling the right product, it doesn't matter how many doors you knock on. Also, people were motivated to work for this candidate because he fit so well and was so compelling. They knew they had a good shot with THIS candidate.)

[pandr32]

1. Well stated. Our country is diverse.

[underpants]

2. I agree. Get someone who reflects the community and GET THEM ON THE BALLOT

[Wellstone ruled]

10. Works every time.

Unless the Vote Totals are Jacked.

[redstateblues]

3. That is the way Gov Bredesen will beat Marsha Blackburn in TN

[Wounded Bear]

4. I'm not big on purity tests. All politics is local...

A Dem that votes with the party 75% is far better than a Repub that votes with dems 0%.

[bottomofthehill]

6. Winner

[steve2470]

19. Yep you nailed it nt

[NurseJackie]

5. Indeed! Clearly they understand their region and their voters and they understand...

... that Vermont-style liberals wouldn't play very well in southwestern Pennsylvania.

[LBM20]

7. Yup!

[Cha]

14. Of course not.. that's just common sense. Different strokes

for different folks.. all over this beautiful country of ours.

I hope Conor Wins.. the chickens haven't all hatched yet..

Jackie!

[ehrnst]

20. Vermont has a very homogenous population. It's very easy to get such a group to agree on something.

More diverse constituencies, not so much.

[NurseJackie]

23. Exactly! Apparently some take great offense when I contrast and compare Vermont with...

... the populations, cultures, issues and sensibilities of other Red-States or Deep-Maroon-States. (I wonder why that is.)

Anyway, I'm still here!

[marybourg]

8. We have a moderate, pragmatic

outsider, woman physician in AZ 08 (Trent Frank's former seat). The publican candidate is also a woman, a hard right one. I don't think we have a chance here, but I'm hopin' and helpin'.

[FakeNoose]

9. Another plus for Conor Lamb - name recognition

He comes from a prominent Democratic family in the Pittsburgh area. Both his grandfather and uncle are active in local politics. Still living in Mount Lebanon where he grew up and went to school, and he's remembered by many friends/acquaintances who were happy to work on his campaign. This means a lot anywhere, but it's especially valued in Pittsburgh.

[LBM20]

11. Yup. Good points. All makes him a good fit.

[Awsi Dooger]

12. He is also a male

I understand that is not a popular topic but I'm convinced we boost our upside by nominating males in the tossup and difficult races. I say that because I've known white rural southern males for more than 30 years, encountering them in the Las Vegas sportsbook scene. Those guys have one bias after another but more than anything they despise the notion of females in position of authority. Heck, I would hear it regarding women supervisors in the sportsbooks, for gosh sake. Those guys hated the idea that women were even considered for those posts.

In 2006 we did not match expectation in the House pickup net, despite Bush and his war being incredibly unpopular. We nominated females in one important House race after another and most of them failed. I saw it up close in Las Vegas. Tessa Hafen was an incredibly impressive candidate in the new Nevada 3 but she lost narrowly to a joke incumbent in Jon Porter. Everyone I knew in Las Vegas agreed that a male of similar caliber to Hafen would have won.

It's not bias. It's logical handicapping, the same idea as nominating less progressive candidates in the districts/states that would spit at a more liberal nominee without second thought.

We have far better chance to limit our losses among whites if we nominate men instead of women.

In the favorable districts/states then absolutely we can load up with female candidates.

I want to win. I don't care how it comes across.

[LisaM]

13. From (not that *I* mind this) a political dynasty.

Apparently both his grandfather and father held elected office, from what I read today. I have zero problem with this, but that's a takeaway too. I am listening to him and he has real political chops.

[LBM20]

18. Sure. He was from the community and was known. That was part of being the right candidate.

[Turn CO Blue]

15. The only lesson is GOTV - which takes a ton of often unpleasant, sweaty, grunt work.

Conor's supporters put in thousands of hours to make this happen, contacting voters five or six times each. You will recall that every Obama supporter was touched (phone or door) at least five times.

That is the lesson from Conor's win tonight. The only one.

One time I showed up to canvass for Hillary, we needed at least 26 people to cover our turf and we only had 2 people show up (one was me.) Another time we needed 22 people and it was just me who showed up. Other times we have more like 10 people, but often newbies need to double up to train, so that cuts the amount of turf that can be covered.

The DNC can say whatever they want, but this is why Hillary lost. Her ground game did not have enough people to work the turf. Period.

We have to touch voters (calls and doors) at least three times and six is better. We have to call them on election day if the clerk's office doesn't show they've voted yet (that is called "scraping votes&quot .

People vote because they're reminded to vote and because they think their neighbors are voting -- they don't vote for reasons of passion or message or because they love the candidate or hate the other candidate or to make a difference -- or even to stick it to Trump.

Voters have awful memories and get easily distracted. You have to make a voting plan with them (where is the polling place, how will they get there, etc)

They vote because someone reminded them to do so. Period.

[cbreezen]

16. I completely agree with you on the right candidate...

though I believe the ground-game matters as much, if not more.

We need to wrap ourselves around the door-knockers... they make a difference in a way that I don't.

I hang out here.

[LBM20]

17. No. A far left candidate would have lost even with all the door knocking.

Sure all the groundwork was very important, but if they were knocking on doors trying to sell people a far left very liberal candidate, it would not have worked. You need the right candidate with the right message.

There were plenty of places in PA and FL where Clinton did have a strong ground game. Northern Maine too. Didn't matter. People in many precincts wanted change. Much as I voted for her and wish she had won, too many did not see her as change.

[David__77]

26. What does far left mean? Supporting Pelosi?

Supporting gun control?

[GulfCoast66]

29. Had Lamb been a strong proponent of strict gun control

He would have lost. He is views are left of the average voter in his district but not so far as to cost him the win.

[ehrnst]

21. Yep. It's way more boring than going to a rally with a bunch of people who agree with you.

But it's far more important and effective in terms of getting that candidate elected.

[ehrnst]

22. "Her ground game did not have enough people to work the turf."

That's a new reason that I haven't heard that she lost.

What research indicated that?

[LanternWaste]

25. What specifically leads you to allege there is one and only one lesson to learn from Lamb's victory?

What specifically leads you to allege there is one and only one lesson to learn from Lamb's victory?

Regardless of your Period.

[Baconator]

32. You can knock on some doors 10 or 1000 times and they still won't vote...

... the way you want.

It has to be something they want.

[R B Garr]

24. Excellent post. Totally agree, and its laughable that

Vermont fans are trying to take credit for this.

[efhmc]

27. Not only a quality candidate but a good fit.

[Paladin]

28. Well put. (nt)

[George II]

30. As I've said dozens of times:

I would much rather have a candidate who agrees with me 80% of the time who can win his/her election than one who agrees with me 100% of the time and has no chance of winning.

We saw that last night. Many of us don't agree with Lamb's position on some of the issues, but we also don't agree with Rick Saccone on ALL of the issues.

A good win for the Democrats.

[RandomAccess]

31. It's almost always a mistake to distill

a victory down to ONE lesson.

Same for losses.

We really narrow our understanding of what we need to do, what works, when we do that.

[aikoaiko]

33. Part of the lesson is that Lamb is a AR15 loving Democrat.

I see a lot of Posts talking about his center politics but no one on DU mentions this:

[IMG][/IMG]

This is a screen shot from one of his ads where the narrator says “he still loves shooting”. And yes that is an AR15.

When other Democrats talk about banning AR15s it jeopardizes candidates like Lamb.