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

[Mr.Phips]

Looking at the 1980's version of TX-08, it was essentially eastern Harris county and covered much of the territory that now makes up Gene Green's district(TX-29), yet Republican Jack Fields won there in a fluke upset in 1980, won reelection with 57% over a nobody Democrat in 1982(one of the races where Democrats failed to find a good candidate before the filing deadline that year because they were still thinking 1982 was going to be a good GOP year before it).  Then, they essentially let him run unnopposed through 1992 and finally drew him a GOP vote-sink for 1992 in order to create TX-29(for Gene Green) and shore up TX-25. 

This seat went for Carter in 1980, and gave Reagan and Bush 41 margins close to the national average in 1984 and 1988.  Even George McGovern got within single digits here in 1972. 

The question is why did Democrats give him a free ride when he was clearly low-hanging fruit?  That would be equivalent to Republicans never challenging Patrick Murphy in FL-18. 

[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.

[Mr.Phips]

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, this topic was kind of targetted at you.

Hance holding TX-19 in 1978(over W. of all people) as a non-incumbent was quite impressive.  That seat went for Ford 58%-42% in 1976 and was voting over 60% Republican for governor and Senator in those close races that year.  I guess Bush was(and still is) that bad. 

Leath's district was actually still fairly Democratic.  I believe it went for Carter in 1976 and as late as 1990 was voting for Ann Richards for governor. 

It seems like for the most part nationwide, it was Republicans who missed all of the golden opportunities to pick up House seats in the 1970's and 1980's..  FL-11, GA-07, VA-05, NJ-03, too many to mention really.

This was really the only one why I dont get why Democrats didnt contest strongly every year.  Bill Green in NY-14 was the other.  And its not even like Fields had a moderate or liberal voting record like Green did.  He was a Gingrich-like conservative. 

[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.

[minionofmidas]

Kent Hance was, of course, not much of a Democrat even by that period's lower standards, and switched parties as soon as he left the House.

[Mr.Phips]

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. 

[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.

[Mr.Phips]

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. 

[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).

[minionofmidas]

Paxon retired after plotting to oust Gingrich two years before it actually happened.