Report to FR on Freeper Candidate for Congress, NC 11th District

Special to FreeRepublic ^ | 3 May 2006 | John Armor (Congressman Billybob)

[Congressman Billybob]

I have not "maligned" Taylor. Even his spokesmen have not suggested that I've said anything inaccurate about him. I gather, however, that you are unaware of the attacks on me AND my family by Taylor people, that began the day after I declared.

Taylor has not sought my support. So there is nothing for me to respond to.

Your suggestion that I am contributing to, rather than trying to prevent, a Democrat takeover of a Republican seat, ignores the political history I've repeatedly presented concerning Torricelli in New Jersey in 2004, and DeLay in Texas in 2006.

Facts are your friends, if you really want to understand any situation. I recommend a dose of facts for you. It's like fiber in the diet.

John / Billybob

[Torie]

I agree with you that an erosion of 20% to an unknown candidate is not a good sign for Taylor. Typically such candidates per my little research project get about 10%, 15% max. If you had made a splash, that would be another matter, but you didn't. If there is a national tide out there, just a tide, not a tsunmai, I suspect Taylor will go down. And if Taylor goes down, that probably means the Dems will take the House.

The district as Antiguv noted is marginal, to start with. And I also agree with antiguv that bouncing Taylor (if such could be arranged, which is unlikely), and putting someone else in, unless perhaps a seasoned popular politician, with a cash horde, will not improve the chances for the GOP holding the district, and might degrade it. It would have been better if Taylor retired in 2004. Finally, I don't think from what I know, that there is much substance to the scandal allegations against Taylor, but having any nexus at all to Abramoff if in a marginal district, where your hold on the district is other than rock solid even absent that, in any event, is somewhat dangerous. The district is not heavily polarized, like some districts in the South. There are a substantial number of floater voters.

The ying and the yang.

[AntiScumbag]

Apparently you have zero concept of how hard it is for any candidate to take a 20% bite out of the hide of an incumbent

For unknown and undocumented reasons, you seem to think that 20% is a big deal.

Let's review a little recent actual, documented history, as opposed to supposition and opinion. Take Texas, for example. A big state, currently 32 districts. Lots of opportunities for challengers.

From 1992 through 2006 there were 46 incumbents (Republican and Democrat) who were challenged in primaries for House seats.

27 of those 46 incumbents (59%) didn't get 80% of the vote.

Those 46 races included 52 challengers. 25 of the 52 challengers got 20% or more of the vote. 3 won the primary outright.

The average share of the vote gotten by a challenger was 22.03%.

The results of races against entrenched incumbents like Delay, Johnson, Armey, Hall, Doggett and Green were similar to the results against short-term incumbents. 20% simply is no big deal, it's routine, contrary to what you might think.

However, there is one big difference between you and some of those challengers. Some of them went on to win the seat.

2006:
Campbell 30% v. Delay
Sinatra 22.4% v. Paul
Johnson 14.7% v. Johnson
Rodriguez 40.5% v. Cuellar

2004:
Rubarts 15.9% v. Johnson
Mosher 10.7 v. Hall
Murphy 12.1% v. Hall
Texas 7.8% v. Culberson
Riddle 22.6% v. Carter
Green 66.5% v. Bell
Hinojosa 35.6% v. Doggett
Cuellar 50.2% v. Rodriguez

2002:
Caiazzo 15.7% v. Johnson
Hillery 12.9% v. Granger
Fjetland 20.1% v. Delay
Gale 9.7% v. Doggett
Hawkins 13.3% v. Hinojosa
Johnson 5.6% v. Jackson-Lee

2000:
Gonnell 6.5% v. Johnson
Morris 8.5% v. Thornberry
Fjetland 16.7% v. Delay
Thompson 12.4% v. Armey
Blount 15.4% v. Sandlin
Rivera-Martinez 20.2% v. Hinojosa

1998:
Mullanax 27.1% v. Barton
Dean 11.3% v. Brady
Amon 6.4% v. Thornberry
Bustamante 12.8 v. Rodriguez
Flores 11.3% v. Rodriguez

1996:
Paul 32% v. Laughlin
Deats 24.4% v. Laughlin
Pepper 20% v. Delay
Berlanga 30% v. Ortiz
Fraga 36.5% v. Green

1994:
Corley 6.2% v. Johnson
Schum 5% v. Johnson
Groce 32.4% v. Wilson
Dudley 21.1 v. Hall
Sam 28.9% v. Brooks
Martinez 13.4% v. De La Garza
Ochoa 26.1% v. De La Garza
Crowley 38% v. Coleman
Jackson-Lee 63.4% v. Washington
Reyes 44.9% v. Green

1992:
Corley 16.9% v. Johnson
McGinn 20.9% v. Barton
Groce 13.2% v. Wilson
Williamson 16.1% v. Wilson
Sanders 33.8 v. Hall
Longsworth 17.8 v. Pickle
Mulvaney 31.8% v. Bustamante
Whipple 17.5% v Andrews

Texas election data

And lying on one's [sic] Ethics Committee Reports is a crime

No doubt about that. But, you're an attorney and know the elements of perjury which have to be proved to convict. Lemme know when someone actually brings a civil, criminal or ethics charge and there is some result other than you bad-mouthing Taylor based on your incomplete knowledge of his financial dealings. I won't hold my breath.

You ought to read my seventh book, Why Term Limits?

I see it's available for 89 cents, but I think I'll pass.

Why Term Limits? Amazon.com Sales Rank: #2,526,065 in Books

Amazon - Why Term Limits?

If the book's average ranking is: 2,000,000-plus, then perhaps a single inventory/consignment copy has been ordered.

1,000,000-plus, the current trends indicate total sales will most likely be under 40.

[snip]

Navigating the Amazon Sales Ranking

[AntiGuv]

The Texas primaries are not a great comparison because of all the redistricting disputes in both the 90s and the 00s. Six of those eight primary elections you list involved either entirely new maps or residual disputes because of recent map changes. Moreover, several districts in Texas are divided between two roughly equal 'power centers' with a tendency to result in primary clashes between them.

None of that applies to NC-11, which has been geographically stable for decades. The political cultures are also very, very different between NC and TX.

[Torie]

Is there, or is there not, a GOP demoralization factor?

This from Charlie Cook in an email, which suggests maybe why the RNC chairman has pushed the panic button. Holding the midterm election right now, might be highly unfortunate for the GOP (the numbers are the numbers):

"In the other variation of what has come to be known as the generic congressional ballot test, when people were asked whether they planned on voting for the Democratic candidate for Congress or the Republican, Democrats led by 12 points among adults, 44-32 percent; by 13 points among registered voters, 45-32 percent; and by a whopping 18 points among those most likely to vote, 50-32 percent.

[sinkspur]

Is there, or is there not, a GOP demoralization factor?

There's no campaign. I don't get why these numbers are horrible.

The Republicans NEVER lead in the generic preference for Congress. They were forecast to lose seats when they won both Houses of Congress in 1994.

[AntiGuv]

If the election were held today the Democrats would be the beneficiaries of a 1994-style tsunami. Statistically, and by historical standards, that means they'd win about 75% of the competitive races. If so, then right now they'd almost certainly pick up the House with a net gain of +19 or +20 and come close to picking up the Senate with a net gain of +4.

Yes, there's been some buzz of late about how the Senate has flipped the last however many times the House has flipped, but that ignores how the current House margin is relatively much narrower than the current Senate margin, unlike in those other elections.

[Torie]

18% is a big number among likely voters, and I have never seen such a large gap before, but beyond that, of more interest to my point, is the gap between all voters and likely voters, with the GOP doing much worse among the latter. Have you ever seen such a large GOP deficit between the two? I haven't.

[Torie]

I should have pinged you to my reply. In any event, the dynamics in Senate races is quite a bit different. Personalities matter more. Incumbency matters more, plus or minus. The odd thing, is that the GOP seems at the moment to be doing somewhat better in the Senate, while tanking for the House. Yes, that might change, and the two converge, and that certainly might be more likely than not, but it is not true now.

[AntiGuv]

The Republicans NEVER lead in the generic preference for Congress.

That is patently untrue. See also here and here.

They were forecast to lose seats when they won both Houses of Congress in 1994.

Umm.. no. No they weren't. This is what was forecast in 1994 for the House.

Alan Abramowitz: GOP net gain of 27
Charlie Cook: GOP net gain of 37
Ronald Lester: GOP net gain of 28
Frank Luntz: GOP net gain of 38
Mary Matalin: GOP net gain of 43 (to win control)
Chris Matthews: GOP net gain of 36
Ralph Reed: GOP net gain of 31
Bill Schneider: GOP net gain of 32
Marty Tolchin: GOP net gain of 38
Ron Walters: GOP net gain of 32
Fred Wertheimer: GOP net gain of 34
Mark Shields: GOP net gain of 35
Al Hunt: GOP net gain of 36
Bob Novak: GOP net gain of 44 (to win control)
Margaret Carlson: GOP net gain of 30
Doug Bailey: GOP net gain of 36
Fred Barnes: GOP net gain of 38
Morton Kondracke: GOP net gain of 48 (to win control)
John McLaughlin: GOP net gain of 42 (to win control)
Jack Germond: GOP net gain of 28
Eleanor Clift: GOP net gain of 30

So, pundits universally forecast the GOP to gain seats, and a lot of them for that matter.

Of the above, the following also predicted that the GOP would pick up the Senate: Alan Abramowitz, Charlie Cook, Frank Luntz, Mary Matalin, Chris Matthews, Ralph Reed, Ron Walters, Mark Shields, Al Hunt, Bob Novak, Margaret Carlson, Doug Bailey, Fred Barnes, Morton Kondracke, and John McLaughlin.

The following predicted a 50/50 Senate: Bill Schneider, Marty Tolchin, Fred Wertheimer, and Jack Germond.

Only Ronald Lester predicted that the Dems would hold the Senate, but he still predicted that the GOP would pick up five seats.

It's very unseemly when you just make things up like that........

[sinkspur]

OK, so sue me. I distinctly remember that Robert Novak was the only pundit on the cable channels who predicted the GOP to take the House.

So, I guess it was taking the House that was not predicted.

[Torie]

I think Sink thinks that before the 1994 election, the Dems were ahead in the generic vote, not that pundits predicted that the GOP would lose seats. I doubt if Sink is right, but that was his point. One needs to dig up generic polls in 1994. I myself was shocked that the GOP won 53 seats in 1994, although I was not following things as closely back them, because there was no internet for me back then. All I remember was Charlie Cook's prediction, which I saw on the tube. The thrust was the GOP would win about 30-40 seats, not 53. And at this time of the year in 1994, it was probably more like 20 seats.

[Torie]

Voila: "The generic vote is not a particularly good predictor of midterm House outcomes, particularly this early in the race. Democrats almost always hold a lead over Republicans in the generic vote of registered voters, with low turnout often a factor in the outcomes. In fact, in 1994, when the Republicans captured the House, Democrats held a narrow lead (+6 in Gallup Polls) in the spring 1994 generic vote. The Republicans took only a modest lead (+7 among likely voters) in the generic poll vote late in the campaign after they introduced the Contract with America."

But as I said, what interests me is the likely voter versus voter gap.

[AntiGuv]

One needs to dig up generic polls in 1994.

There weren't as many polls back then. In any case, the final pre-election Gallup Poll gave the GOP a 7% lead. FWIW,the last election that had a final lead equivalent to the one you mention above was in 1974, when the Democrats had a 19% lead.

Here were the margins in the final Gallup generic congress polls in midterm elections, along with some additional interesting stats: Gallup Polls.

2002: GOP +6
1998: even
1994: GOP +7
1990: Dems +6
1986: Dems +12
1982: Dems +10
1978: Dems +10
1974: Dems +19
1970: Dems +6
1966: Dems +4
1962: Dems +16
1958: Dems +16
1954: Dems +4
1950: Dems +2

All are likely voter figures except for 1986, which is registered voters.

[AntiGuv]

At the link above, you can see the gap between likely and registered voters for the final Gallup polls.

[BigSkyFreeper]

Turning against your own puts the Democrats in power.

[Torie]

A 19% lead when you already have 250 seats, or whatever, translates into less than when you have 200 seats. What the GOP has going for them this time is more sophisticated campaign techniques, and gerrymandering. Will the dike hold or not?

[AntiScumbag]

None of that applies to NC-11

I'm sure that's true. However, it wasn't my intention to apply it to NC-11, but to Armor and his comment about how hard it is for any candidate to take a 20% bite out of the hide of any [long-term] incumbent.

He's obviously wrong, based on years of data from all over the country. Texas was just an handy example. Am I going to spend the hours necessary to catalog the rest of the country and make a detailed statistical argument? No, he ain't worth the trouble. The raw data is out there to see for anyone who cares to look.

[AntiGuv]

No, I don't have any problem with your argument. I don't think the 20% represents anything but a protest vote. The face and name on the protest vote is irrelevant.