The biggest argument I see against Conor Lamb's candidate quality is how he "underperformed Biden".
This is not nearly as clear cut as everyone seems to think. Lamb's vote share was 51.1%. Biden's was 50.7%. The thing is, Lamb's opponent got 48.8%, and Trump got 48%.
This is not nearly as clear cut as everyone seems to think. Lamb's vote share was 51.1%. Biden's was 50.7%. The thing is, Lamb's opponent got 48.8%, and Trump got 48%.
In 2020, closer districts (particularly suburban ones that are ancestrally Republican) tended to see Biden overperform the House candidate by a fair amount. Lamb underperformed Biden by only 0.4 points in margin, which is about a point or two *better* than we may have expected
Add in 2018, where @EScrimshaw notes how Conor Lamb blew through expectations and thrashed his opponent with a 12.6 point victory despite having $8M in outside spending thrown at him, and I think it's clear -- Conor Lamb is a very, very good candidate. scrimshawunscripted.substack.com/p/pennsylvania…
@EScrimshaw The evidence for Fetterman being a good candidate is significantly thinner. He dominated in western PA in his 2018 primary as the only candidate from that area in a state where regionalism counts a lot in primaries. And the general election win was Tom Wolf, not John Fetterman.
@EScrimshaw If you support John Fetterman because you think he's the candidate who aligns more with your views, that's one thing.
But saying that Conor Lamb shouldn't be the nominee because he's not electable is just an evidence-free take that we have plenty of data to refute.
But saying that Conor Lamb shouldn't be the nominee because he's not electable is just an evidence-free take that we have plenty of data to refute.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
