ChrisWeigant.com

Trump Owes Pat Toomey An Apology

[ Posted Monday, March 12th, 2018 – 17:05 PDT ]

President Donald Trump really owes Republican Senator Pat Toomey an apology. Trump also owes the same apology to all the other Republicans he recently taunted by telling them directly that they were "afraid of" the National Rifle Association. This apology is owed because Trump just showed his own cravenness when it comes to crossing the N.R.A. -- on precisely the same issue that Trump castigated Toomey about.

In response to the recent Florida school shooting, Trump convened a meeting at the White House with congressional leaders from both sides of the aisle, in an attempt to come to some sort of agreement on what to do about guns. Here is the relevant section of the meeting, where Trump pushed Toomey to restrict the sale of long guns to people under the age of 21:

[PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP:]   You can't buy a handgun at 18, 19 or 20. You have to wait 'til you're 21. But you can buy the gun, the weapon used in this horrible shooting at 18.

You are going to decide, the people in this room pretty much, you're going to decide. But I would give very serious thought to it. I can say that the N.R.A. is opposed to it and I'm a fan of the N.R.A. I mean, there's no bigger fan. I'm a big fan of the N.R.A. They wanted to -- these are great people. These are great patriots. They love our country. But that doesn't mean we have to agree on everything. It doesn't make sense that I have to wait until I'm 21 to get a handgun but I can get this weapon at 18. I don't know.

So I was just curious as to what you did in your bill. You don't address it?

[SENATOR PAT TOOMEY:]   We didn't address, it, Mr. President. But I think we...

[TRUMP:]   You know why? Because you're afraid of the N.R.A., right? Ha, ha.

[SENATOR JOE MANCHIN:]   It wasn't an issue five years ago, it didn't come up.

[TRUMP:]   It's a big issue right now, and a lot of people are talking about it. But a lot of people -- a lot of people are afraid of that issue. Raising the age for that weapon to 21.

This weekend, the White House finally put out their own list of agenda items in response to the Florida shooting. Noticeably absent? Any mention of restricting gun sales to those under the age of 21 years old.

Trump, by his own criteria, is so afraid of the N.R.A. that he has completely reversed course on an issue that he felt pretty strongly about less than two weeks ago. Which is why he really owes Toomey an apology.

This wasn't the only instance during the meeting where Trump told Republicans to their faces that they were scared of the N.R.A., while goading them to be strong and stand up for what was right. Indeed, he returned to the "you're afraid of the N.R.A." theme over and over again throughout the meeting. He even offered to personally take the political heat for bucking the N.R.A., stating: "They have great power over you people. They have less power over me." Trump was going to show leadership, and give cover to all other Republicans so they could vote in a ban on gun sales to those under 21. He was going to show them all how to take on the N.R.A., plain and simple.

All of which, obviously, is now never going to happen. The N.R.A. spent over $30 million to elect Donald Trump, and they used their leverage to schedule meetings with the president where they (obviously) talked him back around to their preferred position. Trump had already met with them once before the White House meeting with the congressional leaders, and at the time I speculated what the N.R.A.'s reaction would be:

Since Trump has an "R" after his name, though, one wonders if the reaction will be the same. Or perhaps it's not just the party label, but in Trump's case his mercurial possibilities. After all, Trump is seldom consistent. Remarks today can be easily forgotten tomorrow. Sometimes, even, Trump doesn't just forget the previous remarks, he actually denies they ever existed or were said by him. That is an opening an advocacy group seldom has with other politicians (for obvious, non-mercurial reasons).

Which means the N.R.A., if it is smart, won't bother demonizing Trump and his remarks today, but instead will quietly schedule another lunch so Trump can be convinced to completely flip all his positions once again. One lunch is a lot cheaper than a multimillion-dollar ad campaign, after all.

The only thing I got wrong was that they scheduled a dinner with the president, rather than another lunch. After which, Trump began dutifully singing faithfully from the N.R.A. playbook once again. All thoughts of raising the age to 21 were instantly forgotten, it now appears.

Now, a Republican president failing to take on the N.R.A. isn't exactly shocking, especially since they spent so many tens of millions to get him elected. It is what you expect from a Republican president, after all. Trump is rather unique in being so malleable on policy, agreeing totally with whatever the last person he talked to told him. This is why his flip-flop on the age ban isn't even all that notable, for him. It would be for just about any other politician around, but nobody in their right mind looks for consistency from this president. Trump caving in to the N.R.A.'s demands is cowardly, to be sure, but not altogether unexpected. Did anyone really believe that Trump would lead the charge to pass a law the N.R.A. hated? The media had a fine time pretending to believe that, for a couple of days, but I'm sure that behind the scenes they really didn't expect any meaningful follow-through from Trump.

Chalk it all up as yet another glaring flip-flop for Trump. It's a massive U-turn which took place in less than two weeks, but that is really par for Trump's course. But while it really doesn't come as a big surprise, Trump should at the very least man up and admit that he's just as terrified of the N.R.A.'s political clout as any other Republican in Washington. By backing off anything the N.R.A. didn't like in the White House agenda put forth this weekend, Trump has shown he is just as much a coward as all the rest of them.

Which is why Donald Trump really owes Pat Toomey -- and every other Republican in that room -- an apology. Because he taunted them mercilessly with being afraid of the N.R.A., offered to lead the political push to buck them on age restrictions for long guns, and then completely caved when it came time to put up or shut up. Trump is just as scared of the N.R.A. as he ridiculed the rest of them for being, so he should at least tell them he's sorry for pointing it out so publicly.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

84 Comments on “Trump Owes Pat Toomey An Apology”

  1. [1] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Yeah, but ya gotta cut the asshole some slack. After all, he guaranteed us that if he ever happened upon a mass shooting, he'd run in unarmed and deal with it. Toomey can't claim that!

  2. [2] 
    Paula wrote:

    Trump is just as scared of the N.R.A. as he ridiculed the rest of them for being, so he should at least tell them he's sorry for pointing it out so publicly.

    He may or may not be afraid of the NRA but he's definitely prone to doing whatever the last person he saw told him to do and I'm sure Kelly-Miller and for all we know, Roger Stone and whoever else, climbed on him to get him to back down from defying the NRA. Maybe they managed to frighten him, or maybe they just told him the pod people who support him would be miffed.

    Whatever his reasons, they suck. But he'll never apologize to anyone except Big Daddy Putin.

  3. [3] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Gotta agree with CRS.

    And since Trump guaranteed he would run in unarmed to stop a mass shooting, we don't need any new or any gun laws at all. All we need to do is clone a few hundred thousand more Trumps.

    I'm sure everyone here will be on board with that.

  4. [4] 
    neilm wrote:

    What a farce our country is becoming.

    Hans Christian Andersen knew the oblivious-rich-kids-who-grew-up-horrible when he wrote "The Emperor's New Clothes".

    Why can't we all just agree this joke is old and it is time for the old wierdo to go.

  5. [5] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    I think of that fable often, Neil, when I think of Trump. Thank god there are others who can also see the naked truth of it, else I'd wonder about my own sanity. I'm certain that before the year is out, I will have run out of synonyms for 'buffoon'.

  6. [6] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's not a question of fear..

    The NRA (which is nothing but an association of American VOTERS) simply pointed out to President Trump that such a restriction is a violation of an adult's constitutional rights..

    A restriction of one's rights without due process..

    Once again, ya'all are making mountains out of molehills..

    I never really heard any of ya'all complain when Democrats shot down the "assault" (sic) rifle ban in the aftermath of Sandy Hook..

    CW may have awarded them a MDDOTW award, but I don't recall ANYONE giving those Dems any grief...

    Probably because they had a -D after their names..

    It works both ways, my friends..

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    I think of that fable often, Neil, when I think of Trump. Thank god there are others who can also see the naked truth of it, else I'd wonder about my own sanity. I'm certain that before the year is out, I will have run out of synonyms for 'buffoon'.

    I understand your problem..

    I am running out of synonyms for "sour grapes" and "sore lusers"....

    So, I feel for ya, dood :D

  8. [8] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    When I think of the Emperor's New Clothes story I don't think of it as a rich-kid-gone-bad story.

    What I get from that story is that just because everyone says they believe something it doesn't make it true. I see it more as politics of fear story because everyone was told only stupid people couldn't see the clothes that were not there and everyone was afraid to look stupid so they said the clothes were beautiful.

    And it took a child that did not have that fear to point out the truth.

    I am reminded of that fable every time I hear the Big Money Democrat bullshit that Big Money Democrats take Big Money because they are the "good guy with a gun" to save us from those scary Big Money Republicans.

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    The NRA (which is nothing but an association of American VOTERS) simply pointed out to President Trump that such a restriction is a violation of an adult's constitutional rights..

    Let's raise the voting age to 21... Ya'all on board with that???

    Of course not..

    Remember..

    THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO OWN A GUN IS AS MUCH OF A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT AS THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO VOTE OR THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH...

    Twice a day, once in the morning, once in the evening..

    Eventually, ya'all will get the facts straight..

  10. [10] 
    Kick wrote:

    BREAKING NEWS

    Trump fires Putin's pick. Boot licker Mike Pompeo will replace him.

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    President Trump has nominated a woman to be the head of the CIA...

    "Way ta go, idaho!!!"
    -Ham, TOY STORY

  12. [12] 
    Kick wrote:

    Paula
    2

    Whatever his reasons, they suck. But he'll never apologize to anyone except Big Daddy Putin.

    Trump will never have to apologize to "Big Daddy Putin" because he is Putin's Bitch and boot licker and has been for quite some time.

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump will never have to apologize to "Big Daddy Putin" because he is Putin's Bitch and boot licker and has been for quite some time.

    Yep.. It happened at the exact moment that Trump replaced the -D after his name with a -R... :D

  14. [14] 
    Kick wrote:

    Yep.. It happened at the exact moment that Trump replaced the -D after his name with a -R... :D

    Incorrect... as usual.

  15. [15] 
    Kick wrote:

    Yep.. It happened at the exact moment that Trump replaced the -D after his name with a -R... :D

    Incorrect... as usual.

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    Whatever you have to tell yourself to make it thru your day.. :D

  17. [17] 
    neilm wrote:

    THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO OWN A GUN IS AS MUCH OF A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT AS THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO VOTE OR THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH.

    No matter how much you shout this in your head Michale, free speech is not restricted to "a well regulated militia" - the part of the second amendment the gun nuts skip over for some reason.

  18. [18] 
    Kick wrote:

    Whatever you have to tell yourself to make it thru your day.. :D

    Who besides everyone here could have guessed you'd respond with one of the limited repetitive phrases you spew on cue like a doll with a hollow head and a pull string instead like Matty Mattel?

    https://tinyurl.com/y83hvndo

    My day is great, pretty much awesome every day regardless of whichever of the pre-recorded phrases you blurt in response, Michale Mattel *LOL* :)

  19. [19] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Neilm-
    What do you think the "well regulated militia" part of the second amendment was intended to be interpreted and/or how should it be interpreted?

    Could it have been intended or partially intended to make sure that a government militia was well regulated by an armed citizenry?

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    No matter how much you shout this in your head Michale, free speech is not restricted to "a well regulated militia"

    Neither is the 2nd Amendment.. The well regulated militia is simply a reason WHY THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED...

    the part of the second amendment the gun nuts skip over for some reason.

    Because it's not relevant. It doesn't say THE RIGHT OF THE MILITIA.... It says THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE...

    The SCOTUS has ruled that THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE is the operative part of the 2nd Amendment.

    You're wrong..

    It's that simple..

    And, until you can repeal the 2nd, you will CONTINUE to be wrong..

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    DH,

    Could it have been intended or partially intended to make sure that a government militia was well regulated by an armed citizenry?

    You also need to understand that, at the time of the writing of the US Constitution, "well regulated" had a COMPLETELY different meaning than it does today..

    In the days of the birth of this nation, "well regulated" meant running smoothly or working properly..

    The Liberty Bell was a "well regulated" time piece, meaning that it was functioning accurately and perfectly...

    So, a "Well Regulated Militia" doesn't mean a militia that is regulated to death as it is in the here and now.. A well regulated militia was a militia that did it's job, that functioned well...

    Even *IF* the well regulated militia had any bearing on the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, it doesn't mean what ya'all thinks it means..

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, even if ya'all ignore ALL of the afore, the simple fact is...

    Gun ownership *IS* well regulated....

    The problem is, ya'all DON'T want "well regulated"..

    Ya'all want a BAN...

    And THAT is never going to happen so ya'all might as well give it up..

  23. [23] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Actually the meaning of regulate hasn't necessarily changed. My 1969 dictionary lists both as meanings. It may well have been more than one meaning at the time.

    The meaning can sometimes be determined from the context. One meaning in my dictionary is "to bring under the control of law or constituted authority."

    It seems to me that well regulated militia could also mean that the people are the constituted authority to keep the militia in control so that the militia only use their weapons to defend us rather than turn their weapons on us if we have no arms to defend ourselves against them.

    It doesn't have to be one or the other. It can be both. Sometimes people do things for more than one reason.

    But that doesn't mean that neilm or the rest of the ya'all you are referring to agrees with either, so I hope you weren't including me in your ya'all.

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    John M...

    Tonight's the PA election.. Are you willing to go on the record??? :D

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    Actually the meaning of regulate hasn't necessarily changed. My 1969 dictionary lists both as meanings. It may well have been more than one meaning at the time.

    Assumes facts not in evidence..

    But that doesn't mean that neilm or the rest of the ya'all you are referring to agrees with either, so I hope you weren't including me in your ya'all.

    Would I do that!!?? :D

    But it doesn't really matter what I think it means or what you think it means.. It doesn't even matter what NEIL thinks it means, if you can believe that!! :D

    It only matters what the SCOTUS says it means and the SCOTUS' rulings have made it clear that the 2nd Amendment says QUITE clearly and plainly..

    THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

    "These are the facts of the case.. And they are undisputed.."
    -Captain Smilin' Jack Ross, A FEW GOOD MEN

  26. [26] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    "Assumes facts not in evidence."

    I don't have an 1700's dictionary. So unless you do, you are also assuming facts not in evidence if you assume that the meaning has changed. :D

    And it does matter what I think, what you think and what neilm and the ya'all think because at least in theory we select the people that select the Supreme Court justices.

    Where you and I might disagree is that the right to keep and bear arms is infringed when the government meets it's responsibility to make sure that those exercising the right to keep and bear arms meet their responsibilities in exercising those rights by keeping track of the guns from the point of manufacture through all owners. That is not taking them away or infringing on the right to keep and bear arms. Rights are not free- they come with responsibility.

    And no right is unlimited. It stops when it infringes on other people's rights. For example, yelling fire in a theater when there is no fire.

    So the right to bear arms is not unlimited. There is no right to carry a gun anywhere and everywhere you go.

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    And it does matter what I think, what you think and what neilm and the ya'all think because at least in theory we select the people that select the Supreme Court justices.

    Which has no bearing on the decision that the SCOTUS has made...

    I doubt that even if the SCOTUS went 2-7 Liberal that they SCOTUS would change it's ruling..

    Can you imagine the carnage??

    So the right to bear arms is not unlimited. There is no right to carry a gun anywhere and everywhere you go.

    No one is claiming the right to keep and bear arms is unlimited...

    It's the anti gun nuts who want to claim that there is NO RIGHT at all to keep and bear arms..

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    ADJECTIVE
    Properly governed or directed; (now) especially strictly controlled by rules or regulations.

    Origin
    Late 16th century; earliest use found in Geoffrey Fenton (c1539–1608), translator and administrator in Ireland. From well + regulated.

    https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/us/well-regulated

    So.. NOW it means "especially strictly controlled by rules or regulations..

    In the 16th thru the 18th centuries, it meant "properly governed or directed"....

    Facts.. Such a kewl concept.. :D

  29. [29] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    So.. NOW it means "especially strictly controlled by rules or regulations..

    In the 16th thru the 18th centuries, it meant "properly governed or directed"....

    No, “properly governed or directed” is still the definition today. The “(now)” is an addendum to the original definition, not a replacement of said definition.

    FACTS are truly a kewl concept...

    They are even kewler when the statements you associate them with are actually factual!

  30. [30] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Well, Tillerson has finally gotten his walking papers. Supposedly Tillerson, much like Comey, learned of his firing from third party sources and was never contacted by the White House directly.

    Funny, Trump got famous for telling people, “You’re fired!” on his TV show, but in real life he’s too big a coward to tell the person that they are being let go!

    Geez, between yesterday’s House investigation claiming that every one of our intelligence agencies cannot be trusted to run an investigation and today’s Tillerson firing, Trump just isn’t gonna let you have a day off is he, CW?

  31. [31] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Still assuming facts not in evidence. Nothing in your link beyond 1608 which is the beginning of the 17th century, not the end of the 18th century.

    And by the way, I never claimed a fact. I just said it could be that it had more than one meaning then as it does now.

    And well-regulated militia could be a militia properly governed by armed citizens that could keep the government from using the militia against the citizens instead of defending them from outsiders so that could still be one reason for citizens to keep and bear arms that would still fit under your definition if it didn't change by the late 18th century besides just being able to mobilize citizens into a militia to defend us from outsiders.

    That of course, depends on the definition of governed in the late 18th century, doesn't it? :D

  32. [32] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Program Note:

    Today's column will appear late, as I will be waiting to see the results of PA-18 before writing.

    Just for everyone's information...

    -CW

  33. [33] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale [28] -

    The amendment means what the current SCOTUS says it means. That's the sum total of it. SCOUTS currently says one thing, but that could always change.

    As for your research, I sneer at your online OED.

    From the actual (paper) OED, here are a few cites for you.

    Regulated
    Governed by rule, properly controlled or directed, adjusted to some standard, etc.
    Also frequently in combinations, as badly-, ill-, well-regulated

    1766 Compl. Farmers v. Surveying Then may you measure all your whole chains by your regulated chain.
    1790 ADAM SMITH When those companies...are obliged to admit any person, properly qualified...they are called regulated companies.
    1808 SPEARMAN Brit. Gunner (ed. 2) They are fired with a regulated charge of powder and shot.

    Some notes: (1) Ellipses (...) in original. (2) These were all the cites for the late 18th century, although I threw in that one from the 19th, for obvious reasons (it was the next one in the list). (3) A "chain" is a physical measurement of length (a chain of a precise length, to be used in things like surveying), similar to a "rod". (4) the first two I would put in the "governed by rule" category, the third in "adjusted to some standard."

    :-)

    You're welcome. Always fun to haul out the ol' OED...

    -CW

  34. [34] 
    Kick wrote:

    Ya'all want a BAN...

    And THAT is never going to happen so ya'all might as well give it up..

    Oh, I see his problem quite clearly. He insists on spewing the propaganda and rhetoric from the right-wing echo chamber that everyone on the left wants a ban on firearms. It's a lie they propagate on the right to keep the goobers afraid that someone is going to come knocking on the doors of their double wides to confiscate their guns. The right-wing echo chamber knows exactly what motivates their low-information voters, and it's fear; so keeping them stupid and afraid is priority number one.

    I have many friends that claim to be lefties, and not a single one of them wants a "BAN." In fact, I just polled a room full of people, and not a single person in the room wants a ban. I did a head count and there's 31 lefties, 9 righties, and 5 NPAs including me.

    The Supreme Court in Heller was quite clear in their decision that grants people the right to bear arms to protect their homes. The decision doesn't exactly say what the right-wing rhetoric from the echo chamber would have you believe. In fact, on pages 54 and 55 of the majority opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia states:

    “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited…”. It is “…not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

    “Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

    “We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time”. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ ”

    So let me now poll the board with the question I queried the room: Does anyone here actually want a "ban" on guns? I'll go first.

    Kick - Hell no. I agree with the Supreme Court's ruling in Heller that Americans have a right to bear arms to protect their homes but that this right is not an unlimited right, and additionally I have a gun collection that makes grown men weep and ask: "May I please hold it?" :)

    Next.

  35. [35] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW
    32

    Today's column will appear late, as I will be waiting to see the results of PA-18 before writing.

    Just for everyone's information...

    Oh, goody. A friend on the ground in PA-18 says there is a heavy turnout and that the "undecideds" seem to be breaking in favor of Conor Lamb. This particular person whom I generally trust is predicting a win for the Democratic candidate by 6 points and said it wouldn't surprise him if Lamb won by double digits because of "consolidated union support."

    Wait, what!? Double digits? While I highly doubt that, wouldn't that be a hoot to see? I asked him if this is just "wishful thinking," and he assures me it isn't. It won't be long now. :)

  36. [36] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Anybody home?

    PA-18 polls have closed, but no results yet.

    As mentioned above, won't be writing until results are known, so I'll just be hanging out here watching the returns come in, if anyone else wants to chime in...

    -CW

  37. [37] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Kick [35] -

    Yes, that would indeed be a hoot! The hootiest, in fact!

    :-)

    Just read a blurb on CNN, GOP is bracing for a loss, and some are even (gasp!) blaming the Trump rally on Saturday, which apparently is motivating lots of Dems to get out an vote. Now wouldn't THAT be hootastic?

    -CW

  38. [38] 
    Kick wrote:

    I'm out here! What's the word? :)

  39. [39] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Kick -

    I have a relative in the area myself, but north of Pittsburgh, not south, so not in PA-18 and didn't get a chance to vote...

    -CW

  40. [40] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Aha! Results!

    Lamb up 240 to 215 votes! Woo hoo!

    [OK, I'm kidding... some are estimating that 200-250K will vote, so this tiny sample is completely meaningless].

    Here we go... off to the races...

    -CW

  41. [41] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    OK, this isn't going to hold, but again, it's fun to see:

    Lamb up 58.7% to 40.6%.

    but only 1.7% reporting...

    -CW

  42. [42] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW: Just read a blurb on CNN, GOP is bracing for a loss, and some are even (gasp!) blaming the Trump rally on Saturday, which apparently is motivating lots of Dems to get out an vote. Now wouldn't THAT be hootastic?

    So the GOP is bracing for a loss because of Trump? Exactly why I said I would pay his way to go there in January:

    I heard The Cult of Personality a.k.a. Hair Furor was travelling to Pennsylvania tomorrow. I sure hope he is; I'll even pack his little gloves and pay his way out there. :)

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2018/01/17/democrats-flip-another-statehouse-seat/#comment-114303

    The really good thing is that if Lamb loses PA-18 today he simply wins the redrawn PA-18 in a few months anyway. :)

  43. [43] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    With 5% reporting, Lamb's still up roughly by 60-40.

    Wouldn't it really be a hoot if he won with the same margin Trump managed?

    Heh.

    -CW

  44. [44] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:
  45. [45] 
    Kick wrote:

    Lamb up 58.7% to 40.6%.

    Hmmmmm. Double digits. I hope they hold up. ;)

    Did anyone besides me notice that Lamb is running against a guy whose name is literally "sack one"? :)

  46. [46] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    10% of precincts reporting, Lamb still up by 18 points...

    -CW

  47. [47] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Still nothing from very-red Westmoreland County... but for now, Lamb is holding an incredible lead...

    -CW

  48. [48] 
    Kick wrote:

    Holy shirt. Double digits holding up... so far.

  49. [49] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Lamb still up 7000 votes with 26% in. Gap beginning to narrow, as more red districts check in...

    -CW

  50. [50] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Westmoreland starts reporting, margin down to 8 points...

    36% have reported total...

    -CW

  51. [51] 
    Kick wrote:

    The New York Times live predictor has also gone from advantage Saccone to advantage Lamb. Am I seeing this correctly?

  52. [52] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Kick -

    Yeah, the whole bottom of that page is interesting, but it's gone back and forth already...

    -CW

  53. [53] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    49% in, Lamb leads by 8000+ and 9%.

    Still a lot of red districts to come in, though...

    -CW

  54. [54] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Hey Kick,

    Are you seeing results from Westmoreland on your NYT map? On my browser, I get the numeric totals, but nothing on the precinct map at all... just wondering if the problem is with my software, or they're just not updating it?

    Let me know...

    -CW

  55. [55] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    OK, they just admitted that they don't have precinct-specific results from Westmoreland, and they yanked the whole lower portion of the page...

    -CW

  56. [56] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Looks like things could come down to Washington County, where it's neck and neck.

    Greene County count is complete.

    Lamb up by 6000 with 72% in. This one's going down to the wire...

    -CW

  57. [57] 
    Kick wrote:

    Are you seeing results from Westmoreland on your NYT map? On my browser, I get the numeric totals, but nothing on the precinct map at all... just wondering if the problem is with my software, or they're just not updating it?

    Yes, it's totally FUBAR on mine too. :)

    Come on Allegheny, get those numbers up.

  58. [58] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    87% in, and lead is incredibly close, but Lamb still up by 2500 votes.

    -CW

  59. [59] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Lead shrinks to 600 votes!

    Gonna be REAL close at the finish...

    -CW

  60. [60] 
    Paula wrote:

    [34] Kick: Just to be clear: I want a ban on certain types of weapons ad devices -- I think "combat" weapons belong on battlefields, not in the hands of civilians. Bump stocks should be banned. And everything surrounding the remaining guns needs to be tightened up, with background checks, waiting periods, etc. In addition owners need to be held liable for "accidents" with their weapons. If Mom or Pop leaves a loaded gun out where junior can get it, and junior shoots his baby sister or a passing neighbor or a bunch of people at school, the parent (or boyfriend or uncle or whoever) needs to face charges for negligence.

  61. [61] 
    Kick wrote:

    Allegheny still 5% out, though. Depends on which precincts are out. It's a squeaker.

  62. [62] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    Hmm... Looks close.

    as I gaze into my crystal ball I see a main course of recount with a side serving of whooping voter fraud.

  63. [63] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    OK, counting seems to have stalled with 27 precincts left to report (95% in).

    Lamb up by 1100 votes.

    -CW

  64. [64] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    22 districts left to count, Lamb up by 900.

    But good news is Westmoreland is now 99% in, while Allegheny is still only 97% in.

    A knuckle-biter for sure...

    -CW

  65. [65] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW
    64

    But good news is Westmoreland is now 99% in, while Allegheny is still only 97% in.

    The "gerrymandered lump" of PA-18 has weighed in.

    I think GT might be right about those recounts, but this is a 20-point swing in a gerrymandered district. Imagine the possibilities when they un-screw PA. ;)

  66. [66] 
    Paula wrote:

    So apparently recounts aren't automatic, but any of the candidates can request one.

  67. [67] 
    Paula wrote:

    And apparently the "totals" won't be finalized until absentee ballots are counted?

  68. [68] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Paula -

    I heard recounts are automatic if the margin is 0.5% or smaller, which it looks like it will be.

    With 13 precincts left, Lamb has 600 vote lead. Out of over 210,000 votes cast.

    -CW

  69. [69] 
    Paula wrote:

    [68] Chris: well, I guess we'll find out whether recounts are automatic pretty soon!

  70. [70] 
    Paula wrote:

    Benchmark Politics tweets:

    "The news about absentee ballots tonight may be good news for Lamb but bad news for people that want a final result. Allegheny has heavy absentees, but they won't be counted til tomorrow."

  71. [71] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Guy on cable claiming absentee votes will be counted tonight, results from Allegheny County will be in in 15 minutes...

    Lamb up exactly 700 votes, with 12 precincts left to report.

    -CW

  72. [72] 
    Kick wrote:

    So I hear there are 1,400 absentee ballots that won't be counted until tomorrow. Those tend to lean Democratic in PA, though.

  73. [73] 
    Kick wrote:

    Now I hear there are approximately 7,000 absentee ballots total statewide with the majority being in Allegheny... so that's good. This is literally going to be won by only a few hundred votes one way or the other.

  74. [74] 
    Paula wrote:

    Keep seeing conflicting info re: what get's counted tonight.

  75. [75] 
    Kick wrote:

    Paula
    70

    "The news about absentee ballots tonight may be good news for Lamb but bad news for people that want a final result. Allegheny has heavy absentees, but they won't be counted til tomorrow."

    I heard Allegheny and Westmoreland will have absentee ballots counted by midnight while Greene and Washington will count approximately 1,400 tomorrow.

    Twenty point swing is good either way. :)

  76. [76] 
    Paula wrote:

    [75] Kick: 20 point swing is good - true.

  77. [77] 
    Kick wrote:

    It is coming down to Washington where Conor Lamb is actually holding his own and outperforming versus 2016. Squeeeeeeakeeeeeeeer

  78. [78] 
    Paula wrote:

    In passing: http://www.ksbw.com/article/seaside-high-teacher-accidentally-fires-gun-in-class/19426017

    A teacher who also serves as a reserve police officer accidentally fired a gun inside a Seaside High School classroom Tuesday, police said, and three students were injured.

    Yeah, but all those teachers will get training, right? Coz "getting training" is a guarantee of safety, right?

  79. [79] 
    Kick wrote:

    Holy shirt. Conor Lamb leads by 95 votes with only 2 precincts still out in Westmoreland (gerrymandered lump). Is this seriously going to come down to absentee ballots?

  80. [80] 
    Kick wrote:

    Anybody out there in America who still thinks their vote doesn't count? Clue in, people. :)

  81. [81] 
    Paula wrote:

    Jeebus.

  82. [82] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    OK, folks, new (and incomplete) column is up, with a little historical interlude about this region of the country....

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2018/03/13/nail-biter-in-pennsylvania/

    I'll have to wait until tomorrow to write about the election results, since it's obviously going to be a while before anyone knows who really won...

    So... let's all move the comment thread over to the new article in 3... 2... 1...

    :-)

    -CW

  83. [83] 
    Kick wrote:

    PA-18 ABSENTEE BALLOTS

    Allegheny.......... 3,500 Lamb 1,930 Saccone 1,178
    Westmoreland... 1,800
    Washington....... 1,140
    Greene................. 203

    Lamb up 847

  84. [84] 
    Paula wrote:

    [83] Up by 847! That's so much nicer sounding than 95!

Comments for this article are closed.