A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing: Conor Lamb, the Pennsylvania Wunderkind

Abstract

Had it not been for a scandal that forced the resignation of a seven-term Republican incumbent, there would not have been a special election in the Pennsylvania 18th Congressional District in 2018 that pitted four-term Republican State Representative Rick Saccone against Democratic newcomer Conor Lamb. This is an account of Lamb’s textbook campaign and how he won in a district that Donald Trump carried by 20 points and then defeated a three-term incumbent in a newly drawn, court-ordered district.

Had it not been for a scandal that forced the resignation of seven-term Republican incumbent Tim Murphy, there would not have been a special election in the Pennsylvania 18th Congressional District in 2018 that pitted four-term Republican State Representative Rick Saccone against Democratic newcomer Conor Lamb. Had there not been court-ordered redistricting, there remains a question who would have opposed three-term Republican incumbent Keith Rothfus in what had been the Pennsylvania 12th Congressional District.

Court-Ordered Redistricting

In a state that Donald Trump carried by slightly over 44,000 votes, with more than 6.1 million cast,¹ Republicans held all but five House seats in what was considered “one of the most gerrymandered states in the country.”² The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that the congressional map “clearly, plainly, and palpably”³ undermined the state constitution. The new configuration that took effect on February 19, 2018, created more competitive districts to eliminate the distinct partisan advantage held by Republicans who controlled the state government at the time of the last census. It was estimated that the newly drawn lines would yield up to five additional Democratic seats.

The 18th Congressional District, prior to the court-ordered redistricting, was heavily suburban; however, unlike many other metropolitan areas, the high-income suburbs and working-class towns are dotted across the district. The district, as it was, included much of southern Allegheny County and Westmoreland counties and parts of Washington and Green counties. Slightly over 72 percent of the population lived in suburbs. The population, much like the rest of the state, is aging. Nearly 43 percent of residents are between 35 and 64 years of age, with almost 19 percent topping 64 years of age. Over 93 percent are white, with close to 35 percent holding at least a four-year college degree. The median income was slightly above $59,000.⁴ In 2016, Donald Trump carried the district by 20 points.⁵ There is little doubt the district heavily favored Republican candidates. There is no reason it should have been anything but a safe seat; indeed, for all intents and purposes, Saccone should have won the special election. Lamb evidently did not get the message.

The new 17th Congressional District is considered a swing district but is certainly more favorable to Democrats than the pre-redistricted 18th and 12th were. A major portion includes a number of Democratic-leaning suburbs, most notably Mt. Lebanon where Lamb lives, and eliminates many Republican-leaning suburbs north of Pittsburgh.⁶ It incorporates all of Beaver County, with a 15,000 Democratic voter registration advantage, and part of upscale Cranberry Township in Butler County.⁷ Trump would have eked out a narrow 2.5 percent victory in the newly configured district.⁸ Lamb won it handily.

The Candidates: Lamb Faces Saccone and Then Rothfus

According to state rules, party conferees must select, by majority vote, special election contestants. The 250 GOP conferees selected Saccone on the second ballot by a 15-point margin.⁹ Saccone, following his victory, famously said: “I was Trump before Trump was Trump.”¹⁰ Lamb won the 500 Democratic conferees’ nod on the second ballot, garnering more than double the second-place finisher’s votes.¹¹

Saccone hails from McKeesport, Pennsylvania, which is located in Allegheny County. He holds a BS in psychology from Weber State University, an MPA from the University of Oklahoma, an MA in national security affairs from the naval postgraduate school, and a PhD in international affairs from the University of Pittsburgh. He has a varied business background, is a retired captain and counterintelligence officer in the U.S. Air Force, and was a professor of political science at St. Vincent College.¹² At the time of his candidacy, he was a four-term incumbent in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, representing voters in the 39th District, which includes parts of Allegheny and Washington counties. In 2010, he narrowly defeated the incumbent with 50.4 percent of the vote¹³ and squeaked by him in a 2012 rematch with 50.2 percent of the vote.¹⁴ He had impressive victories in 2014 and 2016 getting 60.1 percent¹⁵ and 68.4 percent of the vote,¹⁶ respectively.

Married with two children, Saccone has deeply held religious beliefs that have been characterized by some as extreme. Saccone, a Baptist, has sponsored and co-sponsored legislation and resolutions that have been criticized for violating the constitutional principle that guarantees the separation of church and state, for example requiring public school districts to display “In God We Trust” in all buildings and establishing a day of prayer. Appearing on an American Pastors Network radio broadcast, he explained why he decided to run for Congress. According to Saccone, “God wants ‘people who will rule with the fear of God in them to rule over us.’”¹⁷ He believes it is God’s will that determined the outcome of the last presidential election.¹⁸ Most recently, he served on the Pennsylvania House Children & Youth, Judiciary, State Governments, and Veterans Affairs & Emergency Preparedness Committees.

Lamb, although personally never having run for political office, comes from a family involved in state and local politics. His grandfather was a state representative and later served as majority leader in the state senate. Governor Bob Casey then appointed him Secretary of Legislative Affairs. An uncle is the Pittsburgh controller. Lamb, a Catholic, is Ivy League educated, having earned his BA and JD from the University of Pennsylvania. He served as a captain in the Marine Corps and currently holds the rank of major in the Reserves. Lamb worked as a prosecutor while in the military. Once in the Reserves, he was appointed as an assistant U.S. attorney in Pittsburgh.¹⁹

He made a concerted effort to eschew partisan politics and, instead, focus on issues important to district voters. Of particular note was his work on combatting the heroin epidemic. Lamb is considered as conservative, particularly given his positions on guns, reproductive rights, and crime; however, he champions affordable healthcare, safeguarding Social Security and Medicare, and protecting unions.²⁰

Cecil Roberts, United Mine Workers of America president, captured Lamb’s appeal: “Let me try to explain to you what kind of folks we are and what kind of Democrat Conor is. He’s a God-fearing, union-supporting, gun-owning, job-protecting, pension-defending, Social Security-believing, health-care-creating and sending-drug-dealers-to-jail Democrat!”²¹

Rothfus, Lamb’s opponent in the newly drawn 17th, is not as controversial as Saccone. In 2012, Rothfus won with 51.7 percent of the vote.²² He defeated Mark Critz, who had won a special election to fill the unexpired term of the powerful John Murtha. In 2014 and 2016, he appeared to be safe, winning with 59.3 percent of the vote²³ and 61.8 percent of the vote, respectively.²⁴ It is doubtful that he anticipated court-ordered redistricting and a formidable opponent who had just garnered national attention in his stunning March victory.

Like Lamb, he has a law degree. Rothfus earned a BS in information systems from the State University of New York-Buffalo and a JD from the University of Notre Dame. Married with six children, he was a practicing attorney and associate law school dean before serving in the Bush administration as a faith-based initiatives official and on staff in the Department of Homeland Security.²⁵ Most recently, he served on the Financial Services and Judiciary Committees.

A Catholic, he has a conservative record on social issues that includes banning abortions after 20 weeks and opposing same-sex marriages. A cancer survivor, he voted to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act and against the legalization of medical marijuana. He also voted against reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act.

Campaign Issues: Where They Stand

Former Speaker of the House Thomas P. “Tip” O’Neill’s observation—“All politics is local”—was front and center in the special election; however, candidates must be able to read the major voting blocs in the district. There were over 87,000 union members and their families in the 18th. Saccone is a longtime supporter of right-to-work laws, so it was a difficult balancing act when he was questioned about his views on national legislation. He lauded the quality of American products and said right-to-work laws would not have a negative impact on jobs if union leaders were willing to compete. Regardless, it is not easy to hide the fact that in 2014 the Right to Work political action committee (PAC) endorsed him.²⁶ Indeed, one report noted that Saccone is “vehemently anti-union.”²⁷

Lamb, conversely, courted union support. Tim Waters, the United Steelworkers Political Action Committee political director, said: “He’s got local ties; he’s a local guy.”²⁸ Most important, he goes “right down the line on issues that affect workers in the district.”²⁹ For example, Lamb advocates for job training programs but places the onus on private industry to create stable employment opportunities with good wages. Infrastructure improvements, such as a secure electric grid and modern water treatment plants, are essential for both economic growth and the population’s well-being. He noted that the corporate tax cut did nothing but add trillions to the deficit; however, investment in the infrastructure pays for itself in the form of jobs.³⁰ This is the same message he used when challenging Rothfus.

Rothfus , Lamb’s November opponent, voted for the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, citing it as a means to create jobs and generate higher wages.³¹ Like Lamb, he views a growing economy as the way to put more people to work, but takes a much different approach. He supported eliminating “excessive regulations” that hamper businesses and “wasteful Washington spending.”³² Saccone articulated a similar view in his run for the 18th: “I’m sorry I wasn’t there to vote for it” [Tax Cuts and Jobs Act].³³ He said businesses are investing in employees and all the Democrats know is to “spend, spend, spend.”³⁴

On cultural issues, specifically reproductive rights, the three candidates are pro-life; however, Lamb is more measured in his views than are Saccone and Rothfus. Saccone placed a priority on “advancing” the Trump administration’s agenda, including ending abortions: “People expect us to fight for it and defend it, and I will.”³⁵ He takes credit for spearheading legislation that imposed stricter standards on clinics that provide abortion services, which led to the closing of 20 facilities across the state.³⁶ Shortly after the special election, he co-sponsored legislation that would ban abortions once a heartbeat was detected.³⁷

Rothfus has a lengthy pro-life record as a congressman. In his first statement on the subject after being elected, he said:

I am pro-life and believe that all human beings have an inalienable right to life from the moment of conception to natural death, and I believe that the nation’s laws should reflect this foundational principle of our Republic. I will not support taxpayer funding of abortions in any manner, and will not support giving any tax dollars to any organization that provides or promotes abortion.³⁸

Since then, he has remained consistent in his pledge, including voting to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act and to defund Planned Parenthood. Prior to leaving office, he signed a letter to the Secretary of Health and Human Services, commending him for canceling a contract for fresh fetal tissue to be used for research.

Lamb has stated that he personally opposes abortions but acknowledges that Roe v. Wade is the law and does not favor imposing new restrictions, such as a 20-week ban. David Leonhardt, a New York Times op-ed columnist, offers important insight into why Lamb’s issue position speaks to a wide swath of voters. According to Leonhardt, Lamb is considered as pro-choice; however, his personal belief matters to culturally conservative voters. Of course, he still may lose more ardent single-issue voters. Leonhardt writes:

Lamb thinks about abortion differently from the way that many other Democrats do. It suggests that he sees the issue as an unavoidable clash of rights — between the right of a woman to control her own body and the right of a fetus to survive. To many Americans, one of those rights overwhelms the other. To many others, the issue is less clear.³⁹

Leonhardt continues: “Lamb is able to show respect for people who find the subject vexing — a description that surely applies to many of his newfound constituents. I think it’s entirely rational for them to prefer a representative who shares their struggle with the subject.”⁴⁰ Most striking is dogmatism displayed by both of Lamb’s opponents.

The candidates’ priorities differed, with Lamb having the most clear-cut objectives and detailed plans. Although there was some agreement on goals, such as job creation and affordable healthcare, the three saw things through dissimilar lenses. It was tantamount to the perennial struggle over the proper role of government.

Campaign Strategy 101

There is general agreement on what matters most in congressional campaigns, basically big money that buys airtime for the frontrunner and name recognition for an unknown entity; however, grassroots politics can make the difference between winning and losing.⁴¹ Lamb may have started as the underdog in the special election, but he made up for it with his superb organization, fundraising ability, and ground game. Lamb resigned his position as an assistant federal prosecutor to devote all his energy to the campaign. In addition to his army of volunteers and paid workers, many of them college students, union members took to the streets. In the closing days of the campaign, volunteers from other states joined the effort, which is not unusual for high-stakes races.

Never underestimate the difference energized union workers can make in a campaign. For example, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), Pittsburgh locals 5, 29, 126, 1024, and 1919 paid for direct mail and used social media to connect with other union members and their families. They staffed phone banks, participated in labor walks, and held rallies.⁴² The American Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO), United Steelworkers, Service Employees International Union, and United Mine Workers of America, among others, mounted an aggressive effort. Some estimates indicate that upwards of 10,000 union members participated in the ground game. Rick Bloomingdale, Pennsylvania AFL-CIO President, noted that union workers “held thousands of conversations across”⁴³ the district. It is testament to what labor can achieve when members mobilize to elect a candidate. In all, more than 20 organizations, ranging from women’s rights advocates to retirees groups, endorsed Lamb’s candidacy.⁴⁴

Little was mentioned by mainstream media reporting about resistance groups who powered complementary grassroots efforts. Stephen Sherman, a retired business analyst who resides in Scarsdale, New York, coordinates phone-banking for a local “resistance” organization that formed shortly after the 2016 presidential election to challenge the Trump agenda. Indivisible volunteers—progressive activists—met at his home once a week to phone bank, send texts, and pen postcards that urged registered voters to support Lamb. Hannah Laurison, a co-founder of a statewide coalition of 500 resistance-type groups based in the Philadelphia area, reported fielding hundreds of inquiries from grassroots activists in 11 states who sought to volunteer on the campaign. Her group did what many major county parties do when there are high-stakes races, such as in presidential election years: It found places for out-of-state volunteers to stay.⁴⁵

Lamb, himself, knocked on doors. Allegheny County Executive Rich Fitzgerald said Lamb went to “every fish fry, every VFW, every American Legion, [and every] senior center.” Joe Biden campaigned with Lamb at the Carpenter’s Training Center the week before the election.

State Representative Greg Rothman expressed confidence in holding the seat, noting how unions helped deliver the district to Trump and were enthusiastically supporting Saccone.⁴⁶ Evidently, he misread the political landscape because the unions had deserted Saccone. Nothing Saccone said, regardless of how he parsed his position on right-to-work laws, worked. Shortly before the heavy hitters visited the area, the Congressional Leadership Fund (CLF) Super PAC had opened two offices with 50 full-time volunteers. The plan was to knock on 250,000 doors.⁴⁷ Saccone’s own grassroots efforts left much to be desired. “He showed up late for door knocking and seemed ill at ease at public gatherings. His idea of a social-media campaign was to post a video on Facebook of himself at a Christmas party bar …, rambling about the wings, pizza and zucchini.”⁴⁸

Saccone’s endorsements were no match for Lamb’s, particularly with respect to being able to mobilize throngs of volunteers to do voter outreach. The majority of support came from socially conservative and business-friendly groups, for example, the National Right to Life Committee and Club for Growth. The National Rifle Association was the plum endorsement.⁴⁹

Trump came to Pittsburgh in mid-January to promote passage of the recent tax cut package. While there, he gave a nod to Saccone, and said he would return before the election. On the heels of Trump’s stop, which was billed as a talk about the economy, Mike Pence made an appearance on Saccone’s behalf. Ivanka Trump came just shy of two weeks later to meet with business leaders and GOP state legislators. Saccone was by her side. Trump, as promised, returned the Saturday prior to election, and urged voters to go to the polls. Donald Trump Jr., in a last-minute push to mobilize voters, came three days later. Just how many voters other than the base were energized by the attention is anyone’s guess.

Local network affiliates and cable television were winners in the special election. Reports indicate that, with two weeks remaining before the election, the Lamb and Saccone campaigns, along with outside groups, had run approximately 5,200 ads.⁵⁰ It was estimated that outside groups spent in the vicinity of $10 million on his behalf. Although Lamb had four times the resources than Saccone did, outside money helped level the playing field. The CLF was among the largest spenders, and many times attempted to join Conor Lamb and Nancy Pelosi at the hip. Lamb had assured voters that he would not vote for her as House Speaker, which the CLF ignored in its media blitz. There were claims of how ads on both sides distorted the truth.

The candidates offered no surprises during the first debate, held on February 18, 2018. Saccone, as expected, said he opposed raising the minimum wage, legalizing medical marijuana, and ensuring reproductive rights. Lamb suggested a $10 minimum wage, favored legalizing medical marijuana, and reiterated his stand on abortion rights. Lamb emphasized the importance of protecting Social Security and Medicare. He decried outside spending and dark money in political campaigns.

Tension was higher at the March 2, 2018, debate than it was at the first one. Both candidates voiced support for tariffs on imported steel and aluminum, although Lamb criticized Saccone for supporting measures as a state legislator that would allow foreign steel in public construction projects. Saccone responded, saying that Democrats tend to overregulate everything, which drives jobs to other states. Both opposed banning AR-15 rifles and bump stocks as well as raising the age to purchase rifles. They articulated diametrically opposed views on affordable healthcare. Saccone suggested the possibility of purchasing insurance across state lines and overhauling the system as it is, while Lamb proposed strengthening the Affordable Care Act and finding ways to reduce risks for individual insurers. Saccone criticized court-ordered redistricting and Lamb kept his distance, saying it was up to the courts to decide. They had a heated exchange over campaign ads, each accusing the other side of overreach.

Republicans criticized Saccone for running a lackluster campaign and being a lackadaisical fundraiser. If it were not for outside money, Lamb’s slim 755-vote margin no doubt would have widened.⁵¹ Lamb raised $3.9 million in individual contributions, with 50.6 percent in amounts less than $200, as compared to Saccone who raised $916,000 with 12.7 percent coming in small donations. Together, their campaigns spent $3.6 million. Outside groups poured $10.6 into the Saccone campaign, with the National Republican Congressional Committee spending $3.5 million to hold the seat. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee spent only $315,000 on the race. Lamb refused corporate PAC money and hammered Saccone for relying on dark money groups that put $563,000 into the race. Outside left-leaning groups spent $1.8 on Lamb’s race.⁵²

The Libertarian candidate garnered 1,381 votes, although it is pure speculation who, if anyone, would have been the beneficiary of his votes. Saccone would have needed 755 votes just to pull even.⁵³

Lamb had the advantage over Rothfus in the general election. He had just won a special election that attracted national attention; enjoyed high name recognition; and owned a “massive”⁵⁴ list of volunteers and donors. In addition, he was running in a swing district, which Trump would have carried by a mere 2.5 points. Another advantage was the “enthusiasm”⁵⁵ of supporters who would now vote in the 17th. Rothfus had an uphill battle. Mike Mikus, a Democratic campaign consultant, summed his chance of defeating Lamb in three words: “Rothfus is toast.”⁵⁶ He faced a number of obstacles, including a more Democratic electorate, a fundraising juggernaut, an opponent with unimpeachable character, and a “well-oiled campaign machine.”⁵⁷

Lamb basically followed the same blueprint that he employed for the special election, this time concentrating his effort in “new” areas. As the Beaver County Democratic Committee chair noted with respect to the local party’s movers and shakers, Lamb had name recognition by virtue of the media attention given to him during the special election, but he was an unknown entity in the county.⁵⁸ Lamb thanked organized labor, grassroots groups, and young people for knocking on 350,000 doors.⁵⁹ Organizations, such as Human Rights Campaign, which advocates for nondiscrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, and End Citizens United, which aims to end corporate donations to campaigns, put boots on the ground.⁶⁰ Progress PA, a local resistance group, made defeating Rothfus its priority well before the special election.⁶¹ Jarrett Smith, Pennsylvania state director of NextGen America, a progressive political action group, reported targeting six congressional races, including Lamb-Rothfus. It registered voters at Robert Morris University and Community College of Allegheny County, both of which are in the district.⁶²

A Monmouth University Poll taken in July confirmed that Rothfus had his work cut out for him. It had Lamb ahead by 12 points with a 4.9 percent margin of error. Rothfus said he was not concerned, as many district voters did not yet know him.⁶³ It was more serious than what he let on, as the poll indicated that Lamb enjoyed a solid base of support and Rothfus’s was “split” with respect to voters in carryover parts of the 18th and 12th districts, respectively. Voters in the “new” suburbs leaned heavily toward Lamb.⁶⁴ There was more bad news: Trump had a 51 percent disapproval rating and 48 percent said his “trade and tariff policies would have a negative impact on the district.”⁶⁵ Moreover, only 43 percent approved of the recent tax cut package that Rothfus touted as having supported.⁶⁶ The National Republican Congressional Committee signaled in mid-September that the race was all but over when it pulled its ad buys from the Pittsburgh media market. As reported in The Hill : “It’s grim news for Rothfus, who has largely been seen as a dead man walking since redistricting left him with a Democratic-leaning district and a difficult opponent in Lamb.”⁶⁷

Most reports regarding Rothfus’s campaign strategy related to ad wars rather than grassroots politics. He was endorsed by the Business-Industry Political Action Committee, Campaign for Working Families, Tea Party Express, Firearms Owners Against Crime, and National Rifle Association,⁶⁸ but needed a critical mass of volunteers to compete with Lamb’s ground game. Outside groups poured millions of dollars into the race as they had in the special election, but it was not enough to overcome Lamb’s lead.

Rothfus began by airing two positive ads but went negative as his political fortunes spiraled downward. He attacked Lamb on issues that ranged from denying terminally ill patients access to experimental drugs to continuing federal funding for sanctuary cities. As with many attack ads, the issues are generally more complicated than is portrayed in a 30-second spot. Lamb, for the most part, maintained a positive message. His criticism of Rothfus was generally indirect.⁶⁹ Both campaigns were criticized for stretching the truth.

The first of two debates was recorded on October 7 and aired the next day. The candidates avoided getting entangled in a culture war. Both framed immigration as an economic issue and agreed there should be no further inquiry into allegations levied against Brett Kavanaugh during his confirmation hearing. They parted ways on other issues. Lamb downplayed the possibility of impeachment if the Democrats win control of the House, but said the Mueller investigation should be allowed to continue. Rothfus voiced concern it would result in gridlock. Rothfus defended his vote on the Affordable Care Act and noted the last GOP alternative included protections for those with preexisting conditions. Lamb questioned his opponent’s support of tax cuts and warned that Republicans would come after Social Security and Medicare next. Rothfus reiterated why he supported the legislation, saying it will create jobs and generate tax revenue. The most contentious exchange is when Lamb criticized Rothfus campaign’s use of attack ads. Most accounts of the debate suggest that both candidates played it safe.

Lamb and Rothfus tiptoed around the Kavanaugh issue when they met on October 16. Lamb said Christine Blasey Ford was “very credible” and Rothfus said her testimony was “compelling,” although he thinks someone else was at fault. The two have much different views on the minimum wage. Lamb said he would support raising it to $15 per hour and then index it for inflation, while Rothfus took a hands-off approach.⁷⁰ According to Rothfus, wages will increase as the economy grows. He blamed the Affordable Care Act for depressing wages, as employers limit the number of hours employees work to avoid providing health benefits. They also differed on background checks. Lamb said he supports universal background checks for firearms sold by private sellers, at gun shows, and online. Rothfus did not agree and added that individuals ought to be able to purchase guns from friends and family without these restrictions.

On June 22, Vice President Mike Pence attended a private fundraiser for Rothfus. The President and First Lady came to Pittsburgh on October 30, to pay their respect to victims of the Tree of Life mass shooting. Upon return to Washington, he tweeted: “Yesterday in Pittsburgh I was really impressed with Congressman Keith Rothfus (far more so than any other local political figure). His sincere level of compassion, grief and sorrow for the events that took place was, in its own way, very inspiring. Vote for Keith!”⁷¹ It is doubtful that visits did much to boost Rothfus’s chances, especially as the newly drawn district is not overly Trump-friendly.

If anything could help, it would be the outside money. Rothfus was better at fundraising than Saccone had been, which would be expected from a three-term congressman; however, he was still no match for Lamb. Lamb outraised Rothfus by more than $5.8 million ($8,970,083 to $3,809,793) and outspent him by over $4.9 million ($8,632,567 to $3,707,358). The breakdown tells the story: Lamb raised approximately $4.1 million in small individual contributions as opposed to Rothfus who raised over $122,000. Lamb raised another $4.1 million in large individual contribution as compared to Rothfus who raised over $1.4 million. Lamb tallied almost $674,000 in PAC money, while Rothfus netted nearly $1.3 million.⁷²

What Rothfus lacked in individual contributions, outside groups made up in independent expenditures. Outside groups spent nearly $7.9 million to defeat Lamb with over $4.2 million coming from Super PACs. Only a bit over $666,000 was spent against Rothfus with approximately $289,000 attributed to Super PACs.⁷³ Slightly over $1 million in outside money was spent in support of Lamb’s candidacy, with almost $350,000 from Super PACs as compared to over $254,000 spent on Rothfus’s campaign with about $68,000 from Super PACs.⁷⁴

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and Democrats Abroad spent nearly $108,000 in support of Lamb, while the National Republican Congressional Committee and Republican National Committee spent nearly $2.2 million and over $1.1 million to defeat Lamb.

Outside money may have kept the Rothfus campaign on the air, but it did not “buy” the election. Lamb won for the second time in seven months; this time by 12.5 percent.⁷⁵

Election Results: Lamb Is No Amateur

A candidate who is drafted by the party to avoid having an uncontested seat is sometimes referred to as a sacrificial lamb. A novice who runs to gain name recognition or experience is often referred to as an amateur. Conor Lamb fits neither of these descriptions. He sought the Democratic conferees’ support to run for the unexpected vacancy in the Pennsylvania 18th Congressional District and, once elected, he ran in the court-ordered, newly drawn 17th. He is politically savvy, having learned from his grandfather who served in the state legislature and worked in the Casey administration. Nonetheless, overcoming the odds to win the special election was a real feat, which garnered national attention. He won in a Republican stronghold where Romney defeated Obama by 17 points and Trump drubbed Clinton by 20 points.⁷⁶

The last time Tim Murphy—the seven-term congressman who was forced to resign due to a scandal—had an opponent was in 2012 when he faced Larry Maggi, a Washington County commissioner. He was reelected by a 28-point margin.⁷⁷

Initially, Lamb was not expected to win; however, his fundraising prowess, superb ground game, unblemished character, and impressive résumé put him squarely in contention. He eked out a 755-vote victory (49.86 percent to 49.53 percent). The Libertarian received 1,381 votes (0.6 percent).

The court-ordered redistricting meant Rothfus no longer had a safe seat. He found himself in the newly drawn 17th that Trump would have carried by 2.5 percent. The Lamb factor was too much to overcome. In the only incumbent versus incumbent contest, Lamb won by 40,745 votes or 12.5 percent.⁷⁸