NY-26: Tom Reynolds, the past, the present and the future

[MarkWarner08]

FL-16 is not that Republican.  In fact, its as Republican as PA-08 is Democratic

Except PA 8 isn't Dem to begin with. Please check the party breakdown in the district, please.

The GOP has a 48%-38% registration advantage in PA-08. That's 4% larger than the GOP's advantage in the 16th. Even though many of the GOPers in the 8th are RINOs, the GOP still has a good sized lead in PA-08.

[MarkWarner08]

FL-16 is not that Republican.  In fact, its as Republican as PA-08 is Democratic

Except PA 8 isn't Dem to begin with. Please check the party breakdown in the district, please.

Just look at the Kerry percentages in that district.  PA-08 is a Democratic district.

We don't go by who won a district in a Presidential election. Even if that was the case, Kerry won PA 8 by two points. That is no where near as Dem as you make it out to be. Join the rest of us in going by party registration. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Uh, why are you making that sound outrageous? I think that's what anyone would say by any sane standards. Just because a person of the opposite party can win the district doesn't mean that that district is the same as the victor's. I've never heard such ridiculous logic.

Fine, so in this case would you call OK-04 a Democratic district?  As well as  other Republican held districts like KY-01, KY-02, KY-04, KY-04, FL-12, AL-03, AL-04, NC-03, NC-08, OH-15, OH-01, PA-03, PA-18, NY-13, CT-04, WV-02, MD-01?  If PA-08 is a Republican district, then all of these districts that I listed must be Democratic districts because they all have Democratic registration advantages.

The vast majority of districts who mentioned are either Southern or largely blue collar seats. These districts either left the Democrats after the Civil Rights era or they became Reagan Republican districts.  Party registration can't count for all the Democrats who are stubbornly registered with a party they won't vote for on the federal level. I bet the Democrats dominate at the dog-catcher level in Ron Lewis's seat, but they'll never be able to win in a federal election because of the different dynamics of that kind of race.

Nine of the 16 seats you mentioned are vulnerable to flipping under the right conditions, they include the following seats:  AL-03, NC-08, OH-15, OH-01, PA-03, PA-18, NY-13, CT-04 and WV-02.

[Mr.Phips]

FL-16 is not that Republican.  In fact, its as Republican as PA-08 is Democratic

Except PA 8 isn't Dem to begin with. Please check the party breakdown in the district, please.

Just look at the Kerry percentages in that district.  PA-08 is a Democratic district.

We don't go by who won a district in a Presidential election. Even if that was the case, Kerry won PA 8 by two points. That is no where near as Dem as you make it out to be. Join the rest of us in going by party registration. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Uh, why are you making that sound outrageous? I think that's what anyone would say by any sane standards. Just because a person of the opposite party can win the district doesn't mean that that district is the same as the victor's. I've never heard such ridiculous logic.

Fine, so in this case would you call OK-04 a Democratic district?  As well as  other Republican held districts like KY-01, KY-02, KY-04, KY-04, FL-12, AL-03, AL-04, NC-03, NC-08, OH-15, OH-01, PA-03, PA-18, NY-13, CT-04, WV-02, MD-01?  If PA-08 is a Republican district, then all of these districts that I listed must be Democratic districts because they all have Democratic registration advantages.

The vast majority of districts who mentioned are either Southern or largely blue collar seats. These districts either left the Democrats after the Civil Rights era or they became Reagan Republican districts.  Party registration can't count for all the Democrats who are stubbornly registered with a party they won't vote for on the federal level. I bet the Democrats dominate at the dog-catcher level in Ron Lewis's seat, but they'll never be able to win in a federal election because of the different dynamics of that kind of race.

Nine of the 16 seats you mentioned are vulnerable to flipping under the right conditions, they include the following seats:  AL-03, NC-08, OH-15, OH-01, PA-03, PA-18, NY-13, CT-04 and WV-02.

The exact opposite is happening to formerly Republican districts like PA-08, PA-13, PA-06, NY-01, NY-19, NY-20, NY-24, NH-01, NH-02, NJ-12, ME-01, and ME-02.  As the national Republican party has moved further and further to the right, it has driven away the old Rockefeller Republicans that used to dominate these districts.  The Republicans may have a majority in voter registration in these, but most of these Republicans are to the left of Southern Democrats.

[minionofmidas]

Governor Spade, is there any way Lampson could survive?

Does he have to magically transform himself into Chet Edwards or have the pleasure of running against Shelly Sekula-Gibbs to win?

Chet Edwards wouldn't stand a chance in TX-22.  Chet Edwards relies on two things: 1) He's been an active, reachable, local politician in the area for 20 years or so; 2) The former rural Democrat vote, which unlike Texas suburban vote, likes to crossover and vote for candidates whom they personally support (as rural conservative voters more than Republicans/Democrats).

Basically, the point I'm making is kinda simple:  GOP suburbanites in Texas don't split their vote very much.  And more importantly, the GOP suburbanites who tend to only show up in Presidential elections split their vote even less.  It's a big problem.

The only way I can figure Lampson has a chance is to successfully reach out to the moderate Republicans in TX-22.  It's very difficult, but I'm not going to say its impossible.  And secondly hope the Republicans nominate someone who is a Christian right nutter (not far-right on economics however).  I think he'd stand a decent chance in that situation.

Lastly, if Sekula-Gibbs' name was literally on the ballot last year, she would have beaten Lampson by about a 55-45 margin.  Even though she was a total idiot in Congress, I'd be willing to bet considerable money that if an election was held today, she'd probably still beat him.  That's what your up against.  And there are much better GOP candidates out there than her.

If that was the case, then Lampson would have lost by that margin in 2006.  Her name was right there on the primary ballot on election day and people could have wrote her name in they wanted to. 

The demographics are changing in that district.  Did you notice that it is only 60% white now?

There are safe Republican districts in Texas that are less white. (In California too, btw.)

I believe that 55-45 is overstated, but apart from that Sam#s pretty much right on the money.

[Adlai Stevenson]

I think the most vulnerable Democrat is probably Jim Marshall in GA-8.  He barely survived in 2006 by a few thousand votes.  He has already voted for the surge so he could be running for re-election in 2008, but I expect him to probably give up his seat and run for the Senate against Saxby Chambliss.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Governor Spade, is there any way Lampson could survive?

Does he have to magically transform himself into Chet Edwards or have the pleasure of running against Shelly Sekula-Gibbs to win?

Chet Edwards wouldn't stand a chance in TX-22.  Chet Edwards relies on two things: 1) He's been an active, reachable, local politician in the area for 20 years or so; 2) The former rural Democrat vote, which unlike Texas suburban vote, likes to crossover and vote for candidates whom they personally support (as rural conservative voters more than Republicans/Democrats).

Basically, the point I'm making is kinda simple:  GOP suburbanites in Texas don't split their vote very much.  And more importantly, the GOP suburbanites who tend to only show up in Presidential elections split their vote even less.  It's a big problem.

The only way I can figure Lampson has a chance is to successfully reach out to the moderate Republicans in TX-22.  It's very difficult, but I'm not going to say its impossible.  And secondly hope the Republicans nominate someone who is a Christian right nutter (not far-right on economics however).  I think he'd stand a decent chance in that situation.

Lastly, if Sekula-Gibbs' name was literally on the ballot last year, she would have beaten Lampson by about a 55-45 margin.  Even though she was a total idiot in Congress, I'd be willing to bet considerable money that if an election was held today, she'd probably still beat him.  That's what your up against.  And there are much better GOP candidates out there than her.

If that was the case, then Lampson would have lost by that margin in 2006.  Her name was right there on the primary ballot on election day and people could have wrote her name in they wanted to. 

The demographics are changing in that district.  Did you notice that it is only 60% white now?

Oh, please.  The race was extensively polled, and it showed two things: Sekula-Gibbs would have won easily had her name been on the ballot; but Lampson was almost guaranteed to win since it wasn't.

Republicans knocked off plenty of Democrats in 2004 who were in far better positions than Lampson is in right now.

And if the district is only 60% white, it's worth noting that in the south, whites vote just about as monolithically with the GOP as black voters go with the Democrats.

[Mr.Phips]

Governor Spade, is there any way Lampson could survive?

Does he have to magically transform himself into Chet Edwards or have the pleasure of running against Shelly Sekula-Gibbs to win?

Chet Edwards wouldn't stand a chance in TX-22.  Chet Edwards relies on two things: 1) He's been an active, reachable, local politician in the area for 20 years or so; 2) The former rural Democrat vote, which unlike Texas suburban vote, likes to crossover and vote for candidates whom they personally support (as rural conservative voters more than Republicans/Democrats).

Basically, the point I'm making is kinda simple:  GOP suburbanites in Texas don't split their vote very much.  And more importantly, the GOP suburbanites who tend to only show up in Presidential elections split their vote even less.  It's a big problem.

The only way I can figure Lampson has a chance is to successfully reach out to the moderate Republicans in TX-22.  It's very difficult, but I'm not going to say its impossible.  And secondly hope the Republicans nominate someone who is a Christian right nutter (not far-right on economics however).  I think he'd stand a decent chance in that situation.

Lastly, if Sekula-Gibbs' name was literally on the ballot last year, she would have beaten Lampson by about a 55-45 margin.  Even though she was a total idiot in Congress, I'd be willing to bet considerable money that if an election was held today, she'd probably still beat him.  That's what your up against.  And there are much better GOP candidates out there than her.

If that was the case, then Lampson would have lost by that margin in 2006.  Her name was right there on the primary ballot on election day and people could have wrote her name in they wanted to. 

The demographics are changing in that district.  Did you notice that it is only 60% white now?

Oh, please.  The race was extensively polled, and it showed two things: Sekula-Gibbs would have won easily had her name been on the ballot; but Lampson was almost guaranteed to win since it wasn't.

Republicans knocked off plenty of Democrats in 2004 who were in far better positions than Lampson is in right now.

And if the district is only 60% white, it's worth noting that in the south, whites vote just about as monolithically with the GOP as black voters go with the Democrats.

Polling showed Lampson with a 36-27 lead over Gibbs the week before the election.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Wasn't that the poll that didn't mention Gibbs' name and people replied that they'd write-in her?

Fact is, there was two elections on the ballot. Lampson only ran in one election, Gibbs' name was only on the ballot in the other election. Gibbs got more votes than Lampson did in each respective election where they were on the ballot.

Only way Lampson wins is if the GOP nominates a very very flawed candidate (like on the level of DeLay) and since Texas has a run-off that makes it less likely that the vote will be split a million ways allowing someone like Bill Sali to take it.

[Mr.Phips]

Wasn't that the poll that didn't mention Gibbs' name and people replied that they'd write-in her?

Fact is, there was two elections on the ballot. Lampson only ran in one election, Gibbs' name was only on the ballot in the other election. Gibbs got more votes than Lampson did in each respective election where they were on the ballot.

Only way Lampson wins is if the GOP nominates a very very flawed candidate (like on the level of DeLay) and since Texas has a run-off that makes it less likely that the vote will be split a million ways allowing someone like Bill Sali to take it.

I thought that poll listed her as a write in.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The poll in question was done by Zogby (ugh).  It asked whether or not people were going to vote for Lampson or a write-in, and if people said they were going to vote for a write-in, the pollster asked whose name they would be writing in.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/writeup/texas_22-25.html

In the initial question, Lampson trailed "write-in" by a 36 - 35 margin.  But only 79% of those who chose a write-in could come up with Shelley Sekula-Gibbs' name.

Of course, if you haven't guessed, Shelley Sekula-Gibbs isn't exactly the easiest name to write-in.  Especially with those machines they just rolled out in TX-22.

[Sam Spade]

I had to look the Chron/Zogby poll up, because I couldn't remember the exact questions they asked.  It went like this:

http://www.khou.com/images/0610/22ndoverview.pdf

1.  If the race were between Lampson (D), Smither (L) or a write-in candidate, who would you vote for:
Lampson 36%
Write-in 35%
Smither 4%

2.  Of the write-ins, what name you would write-in:
Sekula-Gibbs 28%
Not sure/Someone else 7%

3. If the race were between Lampson (D), Sekula-Gibbs (R), and Smither (L), who would you vote for (w/leaners):
Sekula-Gibbs 52%
Lampson 35%
Smither 5%

4. If the race were between Lampson (D) and Sekula-Gibbs (R), who would you vote for:
Sekula-Gibbs 53%
Lampson 40%

Also note the poll says Lampson would have beaten DeLay by 10%.

[Keystone Phil]

FL-16 is not that Republican.  In fact, its as Republican as PA-08 is Democratic

Except PA 8 isn't Dem to begin with. Please check the party breakdown in the district, please.

Just look at the Kerry percentages in that district.  PA-08 is a Democratic district.

We don't go by who won a district in a Presidential election. Even if that was the case, Kerry won PA 8 by two points. That is no where near as Dem as you make it out to be. Join the rest of us in going by party registration. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Uh, why are you making that sound outrageous? I think that's what anyone would say by any sane standards. Just because a person of the opposite party can win the district doesn't mean that that district is the same as the victor's. I've never heard such ridiculous logic.

Fine, so in this case would you call OK-04 a Democratic district?  As well as  other Republican held districts like KY-01, KY-02, KY-04, KY-04, FL-12, AL-03, AL-04, NC-03, NC-08, OH-15, OH-01, PA-03, PA-18, NY-13, CT-04, WV-02, MD-01?  If PA-08 is a Republican district, then all of these districts that I listed must be Democratic districts because they all have Democratic registration advantages.

Yes, they'd be Dem districts.

[Mr.Phips]

FL-16 is not that Republican.  In fact, its as Republican as PA-08 is Democratic

Except PA 8 isn't Dem to begin with. Please check the party breakdown in the district, please.

Just look at the Kerry percentages in that district.  PA-08 is a Democratic district.

We don't go by who won a district in a Presidential election. Even if that was the case, Kerry won PA 8 by two points. That is no where near as Dem as you make it out to be. Join the rest of us in going by party registration. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Uh, why are you making that sound outrageous? I think that's what anyone would say by any sane standards. Just because a person of the opposite party can win the district doesn't mean that that district is the same as the victor's. I've never heard such ridiculous logic.

Fine, so in this case would you call OK-04 a Democratic district?  As well as  other Republican held districts like KY-01, KY-02, KY-04, KY-04, FL-12, AL-03, AL-04, NC-03, NC-08, OH-15, OH-01, PA-03, PA-18, NY-13, CT-04, WV-02, MD-01?  If PA-08 is a Republican district, then all of these districts that I listed must be Democratic districts because they all have Democratic registration advantages.

Yes, they'd be Dem districts.

Yeah, but that doesn't mean that they will easily elect a Dem, does it?

[Keystone Phil]

Yeah, but that doesn't mean that they will easily elect a Dem, does it?

When did I ever argue that it would easily elect a Dem or any GOP district would easily elect a Republican?

You lost the argument and thought I was going to go back on what I said so now you have to totally change the subject. Nice try.

[Mr.Phips]

Yeah, but that doesn't mean that they will easily elect a Dem, does it?

When did I ever argue that it would easily elect a Dem or any GOP district would easily elect a Republican?

You lost the argument and thought I was going to go back on what I said so now you have to totally change the subject. Nice try.

I am not changing the subject.  Im just saying that if you think PA-08 would easily elect a Republican in a neutral year, you should also think that a district like AL-03 would easily elect a Dem in a neutral year.

[Keystone Phil]

Yeah, but that doesn't mean that they will easily elect a Dem, does it?

When did I ever argue that it would easily elect a Dem or any GOP district would easily elect a Republican?

You lost the argument and thought I was going to go back on what I said so now you have to totally change the subject. Nice try.

I am not changing the subject.  Im just saying that if you think PA-08 would easily elect a Republican in a neutral year, you should also think that a district like AL-03 would easily elect a Dem in a neutral year.

The candidates also play a factor and I never said PA 8 would easily switch.

[Mr.Phips]

Yeah, but that doesn't mean that they will easily elect a Dem, does it?

When did I ever argue that it would easily elect a Dem or any GOP district would easily elect a Republican?

You lost the argument and thought I was going to go back on what I said so now you have to totally change the subject. Nice try.

I am not changing the subject.  Im just saying that if you think PA-08 would easily elect a Republican in a neutral year, you should also think that a district like AL-03 would easily elect a Dem in a neutral year.

The candidates also play a factor and I never said PA 8 would easily switch.

You seem to think that Mike Fitzpatrick would automatically retake the seat.  That usually does not happen in a district that leans towards the incumbents party. 

Examples:

Moderate, well liked Republican Rep.  Pete Torkildson was beat by John Tierney by 90 votes in MA-06 in 1996.  He decided to run again in 1998 and lost 57-42. 

In 2000, very popular former Rep.  Democratic Rep.  Scott Baesler tried to get KY-06 back after retiring in 1998 to run for Senate.  He lost by 50-36. 

In 2006, former Rep. Ken Lucas, who was very popular in KY-04 tried to take his seat back after retiring in 2004.  He lost 51-44. 

[Keystone Phil]

You seem to think that Mike Fitzpatrick would automatically retake the seat.

Wrong.

 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't see how PA 8 favors incumbents anymore than any other district but whatever the case may be, I don't think Fitz automatically takes the seat. I think he will win in the end but it will be a real fight.  

[Mr.Phips]

You seem to think that Mike Fitzpatrick would automatically retake the seat.

Wrong.

 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't see how PA 8 favors incumbents anymore than any other district but whatever the case may be, I don't think Fitz automatically takes the seat. I think he will win in the end but it will be a real fight.  

If people like Scott Baesler and Ken Lucas could not win their seats back, why will Fitzpatrick?

[Gabu]

 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't see how PA 8 favors incumbents anymore than any other district but whatever the case may be, I don't think Fitz automatically takes the seat. I think he will win in the end but it will be a real fight.   

He meant "the incumbent's party" (i.e., the Democrats), not "is inclined to re-elect incumbents".

[Keystone Phil]

 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't see how PA 8 favors incumbents anymore than any other district but whatever the case may be, I don't think Fitz automatically takes the seat. I think he will win in the end but it will be a real fight.   

He meant "the incumbent's party" (i.e., the Democrats), not "is inclined to re-elect incumbents".

I don't see how that's the case either.

You seem to think that Mike Fitzpatrick would automatically retake the seat.

Wrong.

 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't see how PA 8 favors incumbents anymore than any other district but whatever the case may be, I don't think Fitz automatically takes the seat. I think he will win in the end but it will be a real fight.  

If people like Scott Baesler and Ken Lucas could not win their seats back, why will Fitzpatrick?

Because Fitz lost to a speciality candidate running at the right time. Murphy's novelty will be faded in 2008. He won't bring much else to the table when Iraq isn't the focus all the time (like it is now).

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Unless Bush decides to actually pull out or significantly decrease troop levels in Iraq (haha) or things actually significantly improve there (fat chance), it's still going to be a big issue.

And Murphy won't be running as an Iraq veteran in 2008. He'll be running as an incumbent congressman.

[Keystone Phil]

And Murphy won't be running as an Iraq veteran in 2008. He'll be running as an incumbent congressman.

And his novelty as a vet will be gone. He won't get all the attention that that type of challenger usually receives.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

And Murphy won't be running as an Iraq veteran in 2008. He'll be running as an incumbent congressman.

And his novelty as a vet will be gone. He won't get all the attention that that type of challenger usually receives.

I don't know if your university offers the same Campaigns and Elections class I took last semester, but if it does I'd highly recommend you take it.

Or to sum up what was said on this topic in the class, incumbents don't need novelty or special attention. They get it already with their built-in advantage. That's why they usually win.

Lots of 1994 freshmen were the same way. George Nethercutt is an example. He was just some no-name campaigning against gun control and for term limits. He still stuck around until he stupidly decided to run for Senate.

[Keystone Phil]

And Murphy won't be running as an Iraq veteran in 2008. He'll be running as an incumbent congressman.

And his novelty as a vet will be gone. He won't get all the attention that that type of challenger usually receives.

I don't know if your university offers the same Campaigns and Elections class I took last semester, but if it does I'd highly recommend you take it.

Or to sum up what was said on this topic in the class, incumbents don't need novelty or special attention. They get it already with their built-in advantage. That's why they usually win.

Lots of 1994 freshmen were the same way. George Nethercutt is an example. He was just some no-name campaigning against gun control and for term limits. He still stuck around until he stupidly decided to run for Senate.

Murphy is not really special. If Fitz couldn't be a strong enough incumbent, I doubt Murphy will be. I don't think Murphy has the urge to get the work done that Fitz got done. Murphy craves the spotlight and when the lights go out, he'll get bored.