Posted on 06/09/2006 12:57:22 PM PDT by SirLinksalot
June 09, 2006
The Non-Sequitur Times
Boy oh boy. The New York Times' Adam Nagourney really pulled some rabbits out of his hat on Thursday with his ode to how CA 50 is a portent of Republican doom, did he not? The piece reads as if, fully intending to write a "GOP is doomed" storyline regardless of the actual result, he sat down Wednesday morning and came up with every last reason he could think of why the Republican win was really a loss - and then did not go back through the list to toss out the ones that do not pass the smell test.
The smelliest assertion was the following:
----------------------------------
Of the 10 most competitive races for House seats now held by Republicans, as identified by the nonpartisan Cook Political Report, only 2 had Republican margins of victory in 2004 greater than the one posted by Mr. Cunningham here that year. Of those two, one is held by Representative Bob Ney of Ohio, who is under federal investigation in the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal, and the other by Representative Jim Kolbe of Arizona, who is retiring. ----------------------------------
Outside mathematics, you probably cannot get closer to a tautology than this.
As any quality congressional analyst will tell you, one of the major criteria of placing a race on a "most vulnerable" list is the incumbent's share of the vote in the previous election. This is, as a matter of fact, the key reason. So, to make note of the fact that incumbents who won close scrapes are on a vulnerable list is to do little more than restate the definition of a vulnerable list. That is essentially what a vulnerable list is.
There are usually two other reasons why districts are on a vulnerable list. The first is whether they are open seats. The reason for this is that open seats tend to vote according to the district's partisan division - which gives the out-party a better opportunity to win (as their partisans will be much less likely to vote for the other party). The second is whether there is a scandal in the district. The reason for this is that races that feature incumbents usually turn on the voters' evaluations of the incumbent. A scandalous incumbent invariably prompts negative reviews, followed by votes for the out-party. This speaks to the limitations of partisanship - it is why Chicago's North Side voted out Rosty in 1994, why Ney is so endangered despite facing a 4th rate challenger, why DeLay is packing up his office today, and why Nancy Pelosi would breathe a big sigh of relief if William Jefferson would just resign.
So, that only 2 other races feature Republicans with a margin of victory greater than Cunningham's is, in part, a consequence of the fact that there are more incumbent-held seats than open seats on Mr. Cook's vulnerable list. This is the GOP's SINGLE GREATEST STRENGTH this cycle. They are defending relatively few open seats. If the GOP had as many vulnerable open seats this year as the Democrats had in 1994 (4-to-5 compared to 28), the Party of Lincoln would be all-but-sunk.
Accordingly, to the extent that Nagourney is not speaking tautologically, he is exactly wrong.
(Denny Crane: "Every one should carry a gun strapped to their waist. We need more - not less guns.")
All during 2004 a worked with a girl who believed Bush was going to lose. She was worried. Her statement was,"The news keep saying and showing how Kerry is going to win."
Exactly. Try to talk to a liberal about what nonsense global warming is. They're argument is basically "well, everyone I know believes it, so your science must be wrong."
i believe in Global warming. i believe it is true. Whether or not its man caused is open to debate. But I do believe we are in a warming period
Republicans who run on 'secure the borders and no amnesty' will greatly increase their chance of winning. It's issue number 1, 2 and 3!
We started cooling in '98...
I think the media running its mouth about how the Dims are going to sweep the polls could backfire by increasing Republican and Conservative turnouts at the polls. I know many of us are unhappy, but I for one, will never vote for a democrat and fear what our country will end up like if they take control.
It could be caused by more intense heat from the sun. The sun is not a static entity. There could be many reasons for short term global warming. It is very hard for scientists to get a handle on this issue.
Take Ohio.. Ohio is a very evenly divided state. It is THE battle ground state. But it now has 12 Republican house members and 6 Democrat members. When the Democrats controlled Ohio redistricting it was the exact opposite.
When Republicans took control of the Ohio state legislature and governorship in 1990 they redistriced ohio so that about a half dozen seats were 70 to 30 percent Democratic. They redistriced about a dozen seats so they were about 54 to 46 Republican. In 1992, the Perot Campaign allowed the Democrats to hold onto most of their seats. But by 1994 with no Perot on the ballot those Gerrymandered seats flipped. And Republicans won about 2/3 of Ohio's seats.
The 1994 take over had nothing to do with a Contract with America or Newt Gingrich. That is proven by the 1996, and 1998 elections. Republicans held the house while Clinton had a 58 percent job approval rating.
The 2000 redistricting was more of the same and in a very close race for the Presidency in 2000 the Republicans continued to hold the house. In 2002 and 2004 Republicans continued to hold the house. They will hold it in 2006 as well.
There is an interesting situation in some states that have gone Democratic. The Democrats in 70 to 30 Democratic districts object to being put in a 54 to 46 percent Democratic districts. They need to do that so more districts can be made to favor Democrats. But Democrat Congressman hate to give up sure thing races. Sometimes they have the clout to hang on to their 70 to 30 Demcoratic seats. That resulted in the California 50th Distrirct being Gerrymanderd by democrats to favor Republicans by a 54 to 46 margin.
The Democrats and the New York Times are not the only ones deluding themselves on the Ca 50 race. I saw several articles from Republican pundits stating more or less that that is "just a Republican district". Noone wants to face up to the fact that Bilbray won because of his stance on illegal immigration.
The democrats spent nearly $5 million to attract an additional 1.5%...wonder what the per vote cost was?
I agree in large part with your take about gerrymandering's importance.
I am really wondering, though, about whether you believe this year the immigration issue will effect the voting strongly enough to change the dynamics at all.
Precisely $6002.40 per vote. I think the old knock and drag routine at $20 a pop is more cost effective.
if 'scandal' favors the other party, I can't wait to sed what Republican gets elected to fill Rep. Jefferon's seat ;)
No I don't think immigration will effect the outcome of much of anything.
In my view the people most arroused by the immigration issue are the same people who supported Alan Keyes, Pat Buchanan and the Libertarian party in 2000. They are very vocal but they are not a factor in elections.
Why do you think illegal immigration situation which has been going on for at least 25 years became an issue in the MSM this year? They think it will hurt President Bush and the Republicans. I think it had little effect in the California 50th congressional district.
Consider that the two parties spent about 9 million dollars in one congressional district. The turn out was only 38 percent. Just think of how worked up all those voters were by the ads... How come they didn't even bother to vote.
There is a motivated and angry anti immigration sector out there. But they have to be a very small minority. For even when they all came out to vote and others didn't, they still only managed to give Bilbray a 49.5 percent of the vote. The two other anti immigration candidates got about 4 percent of the vote.
The Pro Amnesty candidate still did as well as Kerry in 2004 and got 45.5 percent of the vote.
What happens this fall when the turn out is in the mid to high sixties. How much will those additional voters be motivated by immigration? I would say if they didn't vote this week in California's 50th district then that says those people are not motivated by immigration at all. If it isn't that big a deal in California's 50th, it won't be much of an issue anywhere.
I think the media got the message. They need to find a new issue.. and they will. This was mostly media hype ...giving a voice to a vocal minority in hopes of hurting Republicans.
Like all the other MSM attempts so far, it appears this one has failed, too.
1. Needless repetition of the same sense in different words; redundancy. 2. An instance of such repetition. 2. Logic. An empty or vacuous statement composed of simpler statements in a fashion that makes it logically true whether the simpler statements are factually true or false; for example, the statement Either it will rain tomorrow or it will not rain tomorrow.
Phewww! I feel better now.
FMCDH(BITS)
You know better than that Common Tator. I've read many of your common sense posts. Everyone I have spoken to or written to are not "anti-immigration". They are anti-illegal immigration".
Stop with the red herring and get it right, would you?
FMCDH(BITS)
I really value your comments about the immigration issue.
I'm a bit surprised though, since I think it might be a watershed issue - and my opinion has nothing to do with anything the Old Mediots are pushing. I'm more interested in what motivates the heart of the parties.
We'll see later this year, but the way you support your point about the numbers and %s of the voters in CA50 is very sound, and I'll mull that over a bit more.
Thanks again.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.