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

Lamb up 847

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

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?

"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. :)

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

-CW

"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 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

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. ;)

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

A knuckle-biter for sure...

-CW

Lamb up by 1100 votes.

-CW

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

Gonna be REAL close at the finish...

-CW

-CW

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

Come on Allegheny, get those numbers up.

Greene County count is complete.

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

-CW

-CW

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

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

-CW

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

-CW

36% have reported total...

-CW

-CW

-CW

-CW

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"? :)

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/03/13/us/elections/results-pennsylvania-house-special-election.html

-CW

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

Heh.

-CW

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. :)

Lamb up 58.7% to 40.6%.

but only 1.7% reporting...

-CW

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

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

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

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

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. :)

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.

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

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

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?

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!

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

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..

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

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

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..

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..

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..

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* :)

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.

Incorrect... as usual.

Incorrect... as usual.

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

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.

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

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

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..

I understand your problem..

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

So, I feel for ya, dood :D

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..

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.

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.