"On the other hand, Conor Lamb is a conservative former Marine who ran, basically, as the kind of conservative Democrat Pennsylvania used to elect routinely. If this is Dems’ formula for taking back the House, it might work, but it will mean abandoning the party’s activist base."

Writes Glenn Reynolds.

I have 4 thoughts, from least to most frivolous:

1. Lamb's presence in the House is disruptive, and hence more Trumpian than Saccone. As Trump himself put it, Saccone would be a reliable vote for Republicans. Just another Republican. But Lamb is a force for change within the Democratic Party. I'd like to see the Democrats challenged from within like that.

2. Trump asserted that Lamb, once elected, would turn into nothing more than a vote on the Democratic side — basically, the kind of nonentity that was Trump's characterization of Saccone. But Lamb faces another election in the fall, less than 8 months from now. He'll be monitored. He needs to prove that he didn't lie to the people in his district. He can't hide.

3. If the looks were switched, Saccone would have won. Obviously.



4. Even though the vote is too close to call, Lamb took the stage 12:45 a.m., introduced as "Congressman-elect," and he was all: "It took a little longer than we thought, but we did it!" That sent me on a memory trip back to that amazing Wisconsin year, 2011, when Scott Walker antagonists pinned their hopes on a state supreme court election. One of my favorite videos from the Wisconsin protests was, "April 5, keep hope alive, vote Kloppenburg":



On the day after the vote, with a 200 gap between Kloppenburg and Prosser, Kloppenburg — expressing elation and gratification — declared victory. Here's video, which you should watch knowing that within a day, in the re-canvassing, Prosser picked up over 7,000 more votes. The joy you see here is about something that did not happen: