Call it the GOP canary in the Pennsylvania coal mine. And…a hint at opportunities to come.
A conservative district (centered in Lancaster County, but not including the city of Lancaster) flipped a Trump +15 Senate seat blue Tuesday night.
I chatted with a Pennsylvania Democratic strategist about the upset win by James Malone, and what it means.
Two things to know about this strategist. First, he was not involved in the race. Second, he wears the opposite of rose-colored glasses. So read the following insights with those things in mind:
“[F]rom a ‘sign of the political winds,’ the victory last night was significant for several reasons:
First, turnout was quite high for a random March date.
Second, this turf has been Republican since the Civil War. It does NOT include the city of Lancaster (which is quite blue)—that’s different than some of these “Obama-Trump” regions that may be inclined to switch back. There’s no legacy of Democratic victories in this part of Lancaster County.”
Third, he pointed out that neither candidate in this race broke through in a particularly “remarkable” way—either good or bad. He termed it a “very low information race.”
“To me, that is an endorsement of your approach of running candidates everywhere.”
“Four, this was NOT something PA insiders were expecting — it was genuinely a surprise.”
Another nugget:
“[T]he Republican nominee arrogantly skipped going to the public candidate’s forum, which should be a warning to these Republicans in Congress who are too cowardly to face their voters in a town hall. Voters are watching, and they won’t respect cowardice.”
Also, a local media account described how the acerbic personality and toxic positions of the GOP candidate—the chair of Lancaster’s county commission—appeared to backfire. Or, at the very least, not spark GOP turnout:
“Many of Parsons’ campaign materials boasted his public opposition to Lancaster City Council’s “Welcoming City” immigration ordinance and Lancaster Public Library’s hosting of a Drag Queen Story Hour last year. Some local Democrats blame his speaking out about the latter event for attracting attention that led to a bomb threat that shut down much of downtown Lancaster.
Parsons also sparked outrage from some of the county’s local GOP chairs last year when he and fellow Commissioner Ray D’Agostino funded mailers supporting challengers to members of the Republican Committee of Lancaster County who opposed his wife’s endorsement for a county judge race in 2023.
His public criticisms against LNP | LancasterOnline, claiming it is a biased news organization, and his belittling of a reporter were the subject of a Washington Post column last year.
‘(Parsons) has ruled with an iron fist,” Castetter said, noting that those who oppose Parsons rarely speak out against him.’”
In the past, I’d say that all these behaviors would make him stick out from your typical candidate. But in this era, the personality and positions described both fit the typical MAGA candidate to a tee. And in this race, that did’t seem to help him.
And my friend’s final thought:
“It’s hard to believe that Trump has only been President for a little over 2 months…he sometimes gets credit for “flooding the zone” and it’s a stated mission of MAGA to try and dispirit the opposition. But this surprising win in the biggest swing state in the country should be a reminder that we don’t have to accept that Trump and his allies will prevail. We have agency, and we aren’t alone in being repulsed by what we are seeing in Washington.
Appealing to the conscience of the Republicans in Congress is laughable because it’s doomed to fail — the only way to change their behavior is for them to fear losing a general election more than they fear losing a primary. Tuesday’s results—in the wake of Democratic overperformance in other recent special elections—should make Republicans in Washington think twice about their radical overreaching.”
Folks…. Run everywhere…in 2025 and 2026.
And for those of you not running, engage more broadly than you typically do, and at the state level.
Along those lines, please join me TONIGHT for a special call on next week’s Wisconsin Supreme Court race. Our next big opportunity…
Sign up HERE.
Big Court Decision on Alien Enemies Act
An important federal appellate decision came down yesterday affirming the district court’s decision to (try to — Trump ignored the order) halt the flights to El Salvador under the guise of the Alien Enemies Act.
Two judges—an Obama and a GHW Bush appointee—found that the action likely went far beyond what the law allows.
The dissenting judge (a Trump appointee) argued that the case should’ve been brought in Texas.
Ilya Somin, a libertarian scholar (we also overlapped at law school) who’s written extensively on this case, summarizes the decision thoroughly HERE, but here are excerpts:
Judge Henderson (Bush appointee): “primarily emphasizes the point that there is no war, invasion, or predatory incursion going on, and therefore the legal preconditions for invoking the AEA have not been met….In this opinion, Judge Henderson does not consider the issue of whether Tren de Aragua is a "foreign nation or government." But I think it's pretty obvious that it isn't, and this is an additional reason to rule against the Trump Administration.”
Judge Millett (Obama appointee): “emphasizes the lack of due process provided to the deportees. They were not given any opportunity to challenge the government's claims (often based on extremely flimsy evidence or none at all) that they are members of Tren de Aragua. …As Judge Millett also explains, the right to due process here is not just an abstract issue of legal theory. The government's denial of due process has apparently led to the deportation and cruel imprisonment of many people who are not actually members of any drug gang and haven't committed any crime.”
Day 114 — March 26, 2025
Step 1: a reporter discloses that he was invited to a group chat on a private application (Signal) with national security leaders and the Vice President as they debated and executed a military operation, which included the sharing of detailed attack orders (times, weapons, etc.) prior to the attack
Step 2: those officials all deny the reporter’s account, many of them while under oath in hearings before Congress; they insist that the information shared was not classified, and instead personally attack the reporter
Step 3: the reporter releases most of the messages from the chat, which confirm his original account and expose those officials for having lied to the nation.
Beyond the egregious security breach involved, the Signal scandal also puts on full display: the appalling dishonesty of these people (lying with gusto even after incriminating evidence is out in the open); their sheer incompetence/arrogance (they essentially invited Goldberg to release the messages with all their trash talk and bald-faced lies); the inability of most GOP legislators to call out anything—including something this egregious; and the fact that Trump does not appear to be in charge of his own administration, or briefed on their actions.
From a broader viewpoint, it all reminds me of the appalling nature of Trump’s infamous phone call with Ukraine, when he shook down Zelensky.
We only knew of that call because Alexander Vindman bravely called it out. But I always wonder about all the calls we never heard about.
Here, we can only wonder about all the text chains now taking place in insecure ways that did not accidentally include a reporter—the only reason we know about this one.
The rot is deep. And I have no doubt this is just scratching the surface.
