[SSVegeta123243]

4 wow good job swing bring the facts just wondering who were those 4

[Swing Voter]

They where:
Max Burns (R-GA)
Phil Crane (R-IL)
John Jennings (D-IN)
Baron Hill (D-IN)

[Snefix]

The problem most people complain about isn't incumbant Congressman, but incumbant parties. Something like 12 districts switched parties in 04.

Of course, I reject this notion that there's some floor number of seats that must be switched each election and anything below that is somehow a "bad number."

[OldPC]

Snefix, on May 4 2005, 05:41 PM, said:

The problem most people complain about isn't incumbant Congressman, but incumbant parties.  Something like 12 districts switched parties in 04.

Of course, I reject this notion that there's some floor number of seats that must be switched each election and anything below that is somehow a "bad number."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh, of course there isn't a floor amount of seats, but legislatures should go through some pretty good cycles...just like changing diapers, same reason too.

Now, my assumption (Tell me if I'm wrong) is that most people in the States don't concentrate very much on their House races, and they concentrate more on the Presidential and Senate races (I mean, they're on TV constantly). I know the guy in my Parent's district (Bilirakis, I think his name is) ran unopposed.

[SSVegeta123243]

well house race are distric races and in small district races the person with pure name recognition wins and it's hard to find a good candidate from the same district to beat an incumbent usually only way an incumbent loses is if they do something really dumb or redistricting

[ManOAction]

Quote

The problem most people complain about isn't incumbant Congressman, but incumbant parties.  Something like 12 districts switched parties in 04

Well that's simple. Is New York or LA going to send conservatives to Washington? Of course not, they are liberal areas. My own area, the 4th of Colorado, has never had a Democrat. Why? Because they are farmers and rural conservatives. The opinions of 600,000 people aren't going to change in a brief two years. (Even if only a 1/5 of them are doing the voting).

Quote

well house race are distric races and in small district races the person with pure name recognition wins and it's hard to find a good candidate from the same district to beat an incumbent usually only way an incumbent loses is if they do something really dumb or redistricting

I think for the first time ever, the gentleman from [insert Vegeta's home state here] agree. People who are dynamic enough, popular enough, and smart enough are not that common. Furthermore, whoever runs against the incumbent is unknown to the people. Just because the people of the district think their Congressman is doing a decent (not even a great) job is no reason to fault them for not jumping ship to someone who has never been there.

The final, and probably biggest reason I have for explaining the power of incumbent Congressmen is seniority. Nobody is awarded a committee chair or a leadership spot in their first term. The longer they stay, the more likely they are to make it to a coveted leadership spot where they can do an even better job for their district.

Quote

Now, my assumption (Tell me if I'm wrong) is that most people in the States don't concentrate very much on their House races, and they concentrate more on the Presidential and Senate races (I mean, they're on TV constantly).

This too seems easy to explain. The larger offices are by their nature more powerful. If you were making a decision on what car you were going to buy, as well as what flavor of slurpee, wouldn't you spend most of your time considering the more important of the two decisions? Furthermore the press concentrates on the nationwide offices because they effect more people. The CNNs, FOXs, and MSNBCs of the world are broadcasting to the entire U.S. Why would they talk about a race that only effects 1/435th of the people?

[SSVegeta123243]

1) Maryland

2) I disagree with your first arguement if you live in a liberal area there is no rule that says you won't send a liberal or moderate republican (look at the mayor and governor of NY and the Governor of Cali) and vice versa

3) of course people pay more attention to the senate and presidential races but that doesn't mean they don't know who there local congressmen is

[ManOAction]

SSVegeta123243, on May 5 2005, 08:09 PM, said:

2) I disagree with your first arguement if you live in a liberal area there is no rule that says you won't send a liberal or moderate republican (look at the mayor and governor of NY and the Governor of Cali) and vice versa

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The Governor of California is not pro-life and is not pro-gun. He could hardly be called a great conservative. More to the point he represents 53 Congressional districts. That is obviously a much more diverse group than most Congressional districts. Furthermore Grey Davis had made such a disaster of his administration (whether it be public relations wise or policy wise), that he sparked the first recall election in history. We can safely say that is a huge mis-step that would warrent a change in incumbancy.

New York is similar in that it is a much larger area that represent dozens of Congressional districts. I maintain that Congressional districts are focused and comparatively localized areas that do not change hands frequently because people do not change frequently.

[SSVegeta123243]

Quote

He could hardly be called a great conservative.

where did i say governor arnold was a great conservative my point is that a liberal or moderate republican could win in any liberal democratic area and vice versa and california and new york are examples