Navigating the Conor Lamb Victory in PA18
The effects of this victory have yet to be determined
By Esha Deokar
The Progressive Teen Staff Writer
THERE ARE SEVERAL KEY ISSUES that surface among times of decision making, and Pennsylvania’s special election was no different. In terms of presidential primaries, Pennsylvania had voted for the Democratic party since 1992; therefore, unlike Florida or Ohio, they never sang the tune of the “swing state” mantras. The blue-collar workers and older demographics clearly felt more in line with the Republican party, therefore leading to Donald Trump’s victory by 1.2% and 20 electoral votes. Pennsylvania is holding a special election this spring due to the recent controversy surrounding Tim Murphy, a staunchly pro-life Republican who encouraged his mistress to get an abortion. Although the election seems to represent drastic differences in the voting public, the results may simply be a byproduct of voters who refused to consider another Republican candidate in light of the controversy. Whether this election can predict the 2018 midterm results is for voters to decide. Since more than a year has passed since our president took office, some believe that the special election of Pennsylvania’s 18th District may determine the fate of bipartisan morale.
Rick Saccone and Conor Lamb stayed neck-and-neck during Tuesday’s election. As votes slowly tallied, Conor Lamb pulled ahead by 0.2 points. Both the polarizing differences and the moderate similarities between the candidates represent the changing base of supporters to Trump’s coalition. Based on his campaign websites, Conor Lamb dedicates his priorities to reducing drug prices and improving the quality of healthcare. Rick Saccone wants to repeal Obamacare, and instead allow the “free-market principles to fix our healthcare crisis.” Those who make up the lower income brackets of Pennsylvania and have benefitted from policies like Obamacare and affordable health coverage may have favored Lamb. Additionally, the issue in taxes lends credence to the blue collar workers’ change of heart. Monday’s first televised debate elucidated Lamb’s disapproving position on the tax bill that acts as a “giveaway” to wealthy Americans; whereas, Rick Saccone voiced his support for the GOP’s tax bill. Republican-led publications, such as the American Conservative, label Lamb as a “liberal Republican” of sorts. This is due to his conservative opinion on the issues of abortion, steel tariffs, and gun control. However, Lamb’s position is not as clear-cut as it seems: although he personally opposes abortion, he supports Roe v. Wade and does not see sense in reversing the decision. Regarding gun control, he advocates for background checks instead of specific restrictions. Saccone, on the other hand, resembles the classic Republican candidate, by endorsing the National Right to Life Association, the NRA, and steel and aluminum tariffs. To analyze the Democratic Party’s future based off of this election requires a nonpartisan view of the candidates and their platform.
Democrats have averaged an increase in sixteen points since the 2016 election. Ben Shapiro from The Daily Wire writes that “it’s the margin that matters, not the victor.” While that may be true on some level, Lamb’s victory, however, further mobilizes the Democrats to turn over the twenty-four House seats that they need. Aaron Blake from the Washington Post tracked the turnover from the 2016 election, therefore proving the momentum Democrats are gaining after each win. Although the headway matters to some extent, most Democrats view the close margin in these conservative districts to be a show of liberal accomplishment instead of a near miss scenario. Furthermore, the Republicans poured over $10 million into Saccone’s campaign fund. Trump also focused on endorsing Saccone by holding a rally for him this past Saturday.
The desperate push by the Republicans to win this election compared to the more clever and clean-cut Democratic technique lends reason to a lower conservative morale as well. The other main argument on the side of the conservatives best expresses itself in Matt Purple’s “Conor Lamb: Lunchpail Democrat, Trumpian Republican” in the American Conservative. By labeling Lamb as a Republican running on the Democratic ticket, Republicans seek to undermine the changing liberal view of their own constituents. This opinion highlights the ongoing conflict in the Democratic coalition. How do liberals balance their stance on bipartisan issues? To maintain a united front, Democrats, in theory, should run on a Howard Dean platform that advocates the hard left. However, to preserve a stronghold in the more conservative districts, Democrats cut into Republican views and provide constituents with a moderate position on certain issues. Blake argues that it is unfair to classify Lamb as a Republican and that he more fittingly adopts the role of a “pragmatist”. This victory’s downfall is due to the fact that the district will be redrawn in November — into four smaller districts that hopefully fare as mainly Democratic.
This election improves Democratic morale for November, but it also provides liberals with a crossroads that prove difficult to navigate. Due to victories in Alabama with Doug Jones and in Pennsylvania with Conor Lamb, liberals are finding it more successful to run candidates based on region and voter turnout. Whether this will mean trouble for House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and her constituents cannot yet be determined until after the 2018 midterms.
