Pennsylvania's 18th congressional district special election

[kookbreaker]

Why do you folks keep mentioning Pittsburgh? That’s the 14th Congresional district, not the 18th.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Why do you folks keep mentioning Pittsburgh? That’s the 14th Congresional district, not the 18th.

The 18th is a wrap-around district that excludes downtown Pittsburgh. But it's suburban and exurban Pittsburgh. They manage to get all the way to the northwestern corner right by the airport, but also extend to the WV border in the southwest and almost to Somerset in the East, conveniently leaving out that big bump of Pittsburgh proper in the middle. For a rather densely populated area, they manage to get about ninety miles north to south and a similar extension west to east by avoiding that pocket of Democrats in the middle.

For all intents and purposes, it's Pittsburgh or Pittsburgh & Environs. I lived in the area (in the 14th) and the largest townships in the area encompassed by the 18th are part of Metropolitan Pittsburgh.

 

[tyr_13]

The 18th is a wrap-around district that excludes downtown Pittsburgh. But it's suburban and exurban Pittsburgh. They manage to get all the way to the northwestern corner right by the airport, but also extend to the WV border in the southwest and almost to Somerset in the East, conveniently leaving out that big bump of Pittsburgh proper in the middle. For a rather densely populated area, they manage to get about ninety miles north to south and a similar extension west to east by avoiding that pocket of Democrats in the middle.

For all intents and purposes, it's Pittsburgh or Pittsburgh & Environs. I lived in the area (in the 14th) and the largest townships in the area encompassed by the 18th are part of Metropolitan Pittsburgh.

Is that still the case with the court-ordered maps?

 

[Foolmewunz]

Is that still the case with the court-ordered maps?

Well, they're not court-ordered yet. No, the 18th would go blue as they've created a new 14th covering most of the old exurban/rural 18th, and the 18th now circles around and includes Pittsburgh.

I'm pretty sure they can't apply any new maps for this election. There is now a state legislature version, the state governor's version and a judge's version. The legislature is GOP, the executive is Democratic, and the judges, on paper, are Democrats(Dem appointees).

So far, the judge's version looks the fairest - they split the fewest counties, at least. But they're going to continue to fight this out - as everyone should recall the state legislature has said it wants to impeach the court.

 

[ddt]

Is that still the case with the court-ordered maps?

This is a by-election to replace Tim Murphy, who was elected in 2016 in the regular House elections and resigned early. Shouldn't they then use exactly the same map and districts as in 2016? Logically, I'd think that you only start using a new map when the whole state elects new representatives.

 

[bonzombiekitty]

This is a by-election to replace Tim Murphy, who was elected in 2016 in the regular House elections and resigned early. Shouldn't they then use exactly the same map and districts as in 2016? Logically, I'd think that you only start using a new map when the whole state elects new representatives.

Yeah, the new maps don't have anything to do with this particular special election. The new map (lawsuits likely pending) will be used in the fall.

 

[aleCcowaN]

From the Wall Street Journal:
Pennsylvania Special Election Loses Its Punch as New Districts Loom

As both candidates live in different districts -according to the new lines drawn by the Supreme Court-, though the candidate must live in the state but not necessarily in the district.

In November, Lamb will probably run for the 17th, while Saccone will have to think it again, as in the new 18th he should run against Democrat Mike Doyle, a 12-term incumbent!

One possible consequence is a really meagre turnout during this special March election of about 20%, which may be detrimental to Saccone, as Democrats are compelled to vote against all-things-Trump, while Republicans are not so compelled to support both Saccone and Trump. This and some bad weather on the 13th may mean a win for Lamb.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

For what's it's worth, I live in the (current) 18th district. I see signs for both Saccone and Lamb. Saccone has bigger signs (posted outside of businesses), but Lamb seems to have a lot more smaller smaller (posted on homeowners' lawns).

That's the extent of my knowledge of this election.

 

[aleCcowaN]

One -maybe important- issue: while apparently close, according to Monmounth's poll Conor Lamb has most support in the part of Allegheny County belonging to the current 18th - 54% Lamb, 40% Saccone-. There dwells about 40% of the listed voters in the district, but that strip would en up belonging to the 17th district and the new 18th district, so I wonder if some people may lose interest in participating to elect for a few months some representative that somewhat will become "alien" soon.

But this doesn't potentially damage Lamb, as he'll probably swap to the new 17th because he lives in Allegheny County, as it may damage Saccone, who also lives in Allegheny County but apparently has little political future in a strongly Democratic new 18th. He may continue his political career in the new 14th, but I don't think his supporters in Allegheny County would be extremely enthused about participating in this special election.

Many elements point to a extremely low turnout, with unpredictable results -and boosting Lamb's chances-.

 

[Brainster]

... in 24 days.

Last poll from Monmouth: Saccone (R) 49% - Lamb (D) 46% - Other 1% - Don't know 4%

I'm not sure how to take this poll. It's among likely voters (good).

One unnerving fact that confirms the national trend which has made possible a Trump presidency and all its concomitant **** is 77% of those likely voters being 50 or older.

Just 7% of them were aged 18 to 34. I couldn't find the district's demographics by age, but it's impossible that such age bracket is made up by less than 11% of the population, especially in Allegheny County.

It's Usaians age 39 or less who are all mouths and no votes, the ones who are enabling this age of ridiculousness. They are the culprits.

I am amused at the notion that younger people are wiser than their elders. It's so obviously contrary to observation that it's somewhat laughable. But it does give you an excuse years from now when all those under 34-year-olds start voting (and voting Republican) about 10 years from now.

 

[The Don]

I am amused at the notion that younger people are wiser than their elders.

Has this claim been made ?

It's so obviously contrary to observation that it's somewhat laughable.

I'm sure you have some evidence to support this assertion

But it does give you an excuse years from now when all those under 34-year-olds start voting (and voting Republican) about 10 years from now.

Well at least there's something supported by fact, older people are more likely to vote GOP. Whether this represents wisdom is, IMO, very debatable.

 

[aleCcowaN]

I am amused at the notion that younger people are wiser than their elders. It's so obviously contrary to observation that it's somewhat laughable. But it does give you an excuse years from now when all those under 34-year-olds start voting (and voting Republican) about 10 years from now.

That is your twisted interpretation.

Younger people are younger than their elders. That's why they must vote, as they complete the population pyramid and thus they make to a really representative citizenship.

Speculations are plain nincompoopery other than youngsters thinking that intelligence compensates for lack of experience, the same way old coots think experience makes up for lack of intelligence.

Time will heal any problems the youngster have now, as it'll also heal any problems society has regarding the elders, Republican and not so.

What a stupid notion thinking that I am calling for the young to vote to bring the election wisdom, when I'm calling them to bring the election representativeness.

It's well know that electoral democracies don't care about "wise", as they have allowed all people who is not blatantly underdeveloped (in my country 15 or younger, plus the severely mentally incapacitated) to cast their vote. We have no problem with people above 65 voting though 9% of them are psychiatric patients, a percentage that 7-folds the figure for the young.

 

[aleCcowaN]

New poll from Blumenthal Research released yesterday

Lamb 47%, Saccone 46%, Miller 1%, undecided 6% -when forced, undecided lean a bit towards Lamb-.

It looks a good poll except by the age of the polled sample: too young, as only 45% of the sample were 46 or older and we know this age bracket will make some 65 to 70% of the real voters.

 

[Brainster]

That is your twisted interpretation.

Younger people are younger than their elders. That's why they must vote, as they complete the population pyramid and thus they make to a really representative citizenship.

Yes, I don't know how I came to the twisted interpretation that your concern about the low voting rate among younger voters was motivated by the desire for the Democratic candidate to win. It is obvious that you just want the population pyramid to be complete.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Yes, I don't know how I came to the twisted interpretation that your concern about the low voting rate among younger voters was motivated by the desire for the Democratic candidate to win. It is obvious that you just want the population pyramid to be complete.

I want the elections to be representative everywhere, not representative "of the past". The poll from Monmouth (the most trustable so far) tells Saccone has slightly more support among the young and Lamb only winning among the elderly [50% Lamb (D), 46% Saccone (R) for ages +65].

Had you read the poll's dossier you would have avoided to show you want skewed voting age just to favour the Republicans.

If I liked to guarantee the Democratic candidates are always favoured, I would only have to promote people with a college diploma to go and vote [people with college degrees: 51% Lamb, 46% Saccone; people without college degrees, 50% Saccone, 41% Lamb]. You can notice I'm not doing that because uneducated people are needed for the representativeness of any election, even when that means Republicans winning.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Yes, I don't know how I came to the twisted interpretation that your concern about the low voting rate among younger voters was motivated by the desire for the Democratic candidate to win. It is obvious that you just want the population pyramid to be complete.

I find it somewhat implausible that you "don't know how" you came up with your twisted interpretation (your words).

Might it be that you're so blindly partisan that you assume everyone else is?

You didn't even read the polls, did you? Lamb (the D) is leading among older voters. If Alec was pushing for a Dem win, it'd seem logical that he'd want more of those older voters. Seems sort counter-intuitive, wouldn't you say?

 

[aleCcowaN]

Poll from Emerson:

Lamb 48%, Saccone 45%

By county:
Allegheny (areas South and South-east of Pittsburgh, 43% of the voters): Lamb 57%, Saccone 40%
Westmoreland (33%): Saccone 51%, Lamb 42%
Washington (22%): Saccone 46%, Lamb 41%
Greene (2%): not representative

People 55 or older were a 72% of the sample. More men than women. Almost 10% non pure white. 20% of the sample gotten online. It doesn't look very well. The technical credibility interval is +/- 4.8%.

So far, the election seems to be a toss-up

 

[Brainster]

I find it somewhat implausible that you "don't know how" you came up with your twisted interpretation (your words).

I didn't put a winky on the end of that sentence because I thought it was obvious that I was being facetious.

Might it be that you're so blindly partisan that you assume everyone else is?

You didn't even read the polls, did you? Lamb (the D) is leading among older voters. If Alec was pushing for a Dem win, it'd seem logical that he'd want more of those older voters. Seems sort counter-intuitive, wouldn't you say?

Then why did he say in his initial post:

One unnerving fact that confirms the national trend which has made possible a Trump presidency and all its concomitant **** is 77% of those likely voters being 50 or older.

Just 7% of them were aged 18 to 34. I couldn't find the district's demographics by age, but it's impossible that such age bracket is made up by less than 11% of the population, especially in Allegheny County.

It's Usaians age 39 or less who are all mouths and no votes, the ones who are enabling this age of ridiculousness. They are the culprits.

Sounds to me like he was saying there that if more young people voted, this age of ridiculousness would end. Now you tell me he's saying that if more young people voted, the Republican would win. So according to Alec, the age of ridiculousness ends if the Republicans win? I guess we agree then, we do need the population pyramid completed.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Sounds to me like he was saying there that if more young people voted, this age of ridiculousness would end.

Exactly that: this age of ridiculousness includes republikers and democrats as they are today, and whose reign only will end if younger people commit.

The importance of these elections is citizens showing they're capable of changing. Alabama did, and now PA-18 seems to be doing it too.

 

[aleCcowaN]

New poll from Blumenthal Research released yesterday

Lamb 47%, Saccone 46%, Miller 1%, undecided 6% -when forced, undecided lean a bit towards Lamb-.

It looks a good poll except by the age of the polled sample: too young, as only 45% of the sample were 46 or older and we know this age bracket will make some 65 to 70% of the real voters.

Admittedly, this poll was a fake. Mr. Blumenthal reported he manufactured the results in 15 minutes, following numbers in other polls.

I should have made clear in my post that no dossier was offered, and visited their twitter account -now suspended- to notice they had only 20 followers, but many small media reported it and the track of elections local to the company (Virginia) wasn't bad.

Blumenthal wanted to go viral and show, in a high school bully way, that people is "gullible" and the cost was only his reputation.