Why did Democrats give Jack Fields a free pass in TX-08 in the 1980's?

[freepcrusher]

i've wondered the same thing too. It seems that the republicans were equally as guilty. Marvin Leath and Kent Hance were both unopposed in 1980 and could maybe have been defeated.

[freepcrusher]

for all of krazen's talk of the TX GOP being one of the strongest in their country, they were actually quite stupid and everything just fell into their lap.

There was a period where the TX republicans never bothered to oppose anyone. George Mahon represented a district on the west Texas border and almost always ran unopposed. When they finally ran a candidate against him in 1976, he was held to 54 percent. Same with Bob Poage that year where he was held to 57 percent (running even with Carter). Another chronic underperformer was Jack Brooks who rarely got above 61-62 percent and often ran unopposed when he could have lost (and his district was usually around D+7). Stenholm also ran unopposed in something like six consecutive elections. The other district was TX 2 where Charles Wilson was held to 55 percent in 1990. He probably could have been defeated had they run a better candidate.

[freepcrusher]

for all of krazen's talk of the TX GOP being one of the strongest in their country, they were actually quite stupid and everything just fell into their lap.

There was a period where the TX republicans never bothered to oppose anyone. George Mahon represented a district on the west Texas border and almost always ran unopposed. When they finally ran a candidate against him in 1976, he was held to 54 percent. Same with Bob Poage that year where he was held to 57 percent (running even with Carter). Another chronic underperformer was Jack Brooks who rarely got above 61-62 percent and often ran unopposed when he could have lost (and his district was usually around D+7). Stenholm also ran unopposed in something like six consecutive elections. The other district was TX 2 where Charles Wilson was held to 55 percent in 1990. He probably could have been defeated had they run a better candidate.

And it wasnt just Texas.  In the 1980's and really up through 1992, Republicans were just stupid in House targetting.  Why they kept going after people like Kastenmeier in WI-02 which went for Mondale and McGovern and spent millions going after Burton in SanFrancisco in 1982 in a district that had not voted Republican at the Presidential level since the 1950's is beyond me.  They missed so many good opportunities to pick up Democratic seats.   For instance, in 1990, a nobody ran against Earl Hutto in FL-01 in an R+20 seat and got 48%.  Had the Republicans given him some money, he would have defeated Hutto.  They also nearly picked up four New Jersey seats(Pallone, the open Florio seat, Dwyer, and Torricelli) in 1990 with candidates who all spent under $40,000. 

the thing i'm wondering though is why the nrcc stopped acting stupid beginning around 92/94.

[freepcrusher]

for all of krazen's talk of the TX GOP being one of the strongest in their country, they were actually quite stupid and everything just fell into their lap.

There was a period where the TX republicans never bothered to oppose anyone. George Mahon represented a district on the west Texas border and almost always ran unopposed. When they finally ran a candidate against him in 1976, he was held to 54 percent. Same with Bob Poage that year where he was held to 57 percent (running even with Carter). Another chronic underperformer was Jack Brooks who rarely got above 61-62 percent and often ran unopposed when he could have lost (and his district was usually around D+7). Stenholm also ran unopposed in something like six consecutive elections. The other district was TX 2 where Charles Wilson was held to 55 percent in 1990. He probably could have been defeated had they run a better candidate.

And it wasnt just Texas.  In the 1980's and really up through 1992, Republicans were just stupid in House targetting.  Why they kept going after people like Kastenmeier in WI-02 which went for Mondale and McGovern and spent millions going after Burton in SanFrancisco in 1982 in a district that had not voted Republican at the Presidential level since the 1950's is beyond me.  They missed so many good opportunities to pick up Democratic seats.   For instance, in 1990, a nobody ran against Earl Hutto in FL-01 in an R+20 seat and got 48%.  Had the Republicans given him some money, he would have defeated Hutto.  They also nearly picked up four New Jersey seats(Pallone, the open Florio seat, Dwyer, and Torricelli) in 1990 with candidates who all spent under $40,000. 

the thing i'm wondering though is why the nrcc stopped acting stupid beginning around 92/94.

The NRCC chair(Guy VanderJagt) got thrown out of Congress in 1992(by Pete Hoekstra in the primary) and Republicans replaced him with Bill Paxon(not the guy from the James Cameron movies), who had a generally stronger drive and determination to win back the majority.  VanderJagt had been chair since 1976 and its amazing that Republicans didnt dump him after 1982 or 1988(when Republicans actually lost more seats in Bush's landslide).

I think that's probably 95% of the answer to your question. 

i remember Paxon. He pretty much fit into the "young republican" mold of someone like Paul Ryan or John Kasich. A smart pol, but a charlatan (and maybe a closetcase too).