Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The War Room' started by Lead, Mar 13, 2018.
I know it might be coincidence, but do you guys think the Tillerson drop was intentional the same day as this? Or would they have done it Wednesday?
I think it could only hurt Republicans if it hurts anyone, and Trump is fond of Saccone, so I doubt it. Just a poorly-considered knee-jerk move by Trump imo.
Tillerson was Putin's call. Though he was already dead in the water, coming out against Russia was the straw
40% in 54-46 Lamb
88,311 votes, 45% reporting (268 of 593 precincts)
Whatever the result from here, this has been a disaster for the Republican Party. A Trump candidate should be cleaning up, but again we see that's not the case.
What does the NY Times predictor machine say?
I have learned never to doubt it.
53-45 47% in 8k vote lead for Lamb
Westmoreland turnout still not coming in until around 930. That's going to be the final indicator of who probably takes this. It's a rural area Saccone would be hoping for high turnout.
It's pretty crazy watching how much it stays directly in the middle despite more votes coming in. The margin could be under 1%
52-47 56% in 5k lead lamb
114,055 votes, 58% reporting (342 of 593 precincts)
I smell a recount after tonight
For some reason, Westmoreland isn't reporting by precincts today and the NY times model is build on that. They might be turning the needle off @Fawlty. We are all in the fucking dark now.
Fucking Westmoreland gets a chance to be in national news and they do something that stupid. Not surprised at all.
Yeah this one is a nail biter. We'll get a big chunky surprise at the end it looks like.
120,769 votes, 61% reporting (359 of 593 precincts)
I think it's especially amazing that this seat has generally gone uncontested republican.