If you think that is either easy, or common, you're knowledge of congressional races is defective. And, "one article" means "one article." It was in the North Carolina Conservative. And lying on one's Ethics Committee Reports is a crime -- it's called perjury. Perhaps you missed the memo on that.
Lastly, you seemed to have missed the historical point that when incumbents are defeated for reelection, it is almost always a matter of political suicide. Almost never do they succumb to a challenger's campaign. Almost always there is a serious defect in the incumbent which leads directly to his/her defeat.
Your ignorance of the history of congressional elections is massive. You ought to read my seventh book, Why Term Limits?. As for your bias, I neither know nor care what the source of that is.
Have a nice day.
John / Billybob
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.
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
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
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]