Thursday, December 27, 2007

Pipkin Campaign Touts New Poll

According to, the Pipkin campaign is ecstatic about a new poll showing him in a dead heat for second place.

The campaign of state Sen. E.J. Pipkin is touting a new poll. The survey, by McLaughlin & Associates, surveyed 300 likely Republican voters from Dec. 18-19, and asked them who they were supporting in the primary. Among the major three candidates, incumbent Rep. Wayne Gilchrest led with 33%, followed by Pipkin with 27.2%, and state Sen. Andy Harris was third with 26.8%.

“We are the candidate for Republicans,” Pipkin Press Secretary Andi Morony said during an interview with

Morony said the campaign was “encouraged” by the results of the poll; expressing confidence in the fact that Pipkin was ahead of Harris and within striking distance of Gilchrest.
As I pointed out yesterday, campaign managers get paid to say outrageous things and Ms. Morony rose to the challenge. Senator Pipkin is a well known figure in MD-1 and has high name recognition. So his polling 27% in a three way primary is pretty much in line with what one would expect based on name recognition alone. The idea that a 0.4% lead in a poll of 300 persons is significant (that would be one person's answer) certainly assaults one's credulity.
Both the Pipkin and Harris campaigns have been running to the right of Gilchrest, a moderate. Morony said that the campaign was not trying to be the “alternative to the incumbent,” and said that she was not worried that Pipkin and Harris could split the conservative vote.

She reiterated her point that Pipkin was the “best candidate” for Republican voters.

“We believe voters want conservative representation on the Eastern Shore,” Morony said. “E.J. has done nothing but work hard for the people of the first district.”
To be clear here, we believe, without reservation, that Andy Harris is the best candidate in MD-1. We also believe that should Senator Pipkin prevail he, too, would be not only be a welcome change from the the weathervane that is Wayne Gilchrest but an excellent representative in his own right.

Unfortunately, Ms. Morony is wrong on two key issues. Senator Harris is the only candidate in the race who can be viewed as a conservative. Senator Pipkin is undoubtedly to the right of most Maryland Republicans but he would have a lot of trouble convincing mainstream conservatives that he is their candidate. If Ms. Morony truly believes that Mr. Pipkin is not trying to be an alternative to Mr.Gilchrest and Mr. Harris one wonders why in Heaven's name he is in the race. If she isn't afraid that he and Harris will split the conservative and Republican vote then she simply isn't paying attention.


The Waterman said...

Harris a conservative? Hardly. True American conservatism exists in only one mode - that of Barry Goldwater.

More than anyone else he built the modern Republican party after the years of capitulation to FDR and the New Dealers. And yet now the Republican party would piss all over that legacy by claiming the likes of Andy Harris are conservative.

Goldwater affirmed that true conservatism has nothing to do with the religious right values and everything to do with so-called libertarian values.

I don't think anyone can argue that Harris is of an intensely religious bent and that this has a strong influence on his voting. Can you honestly say that Harris is not part of the group that Goldwater was speaking of when he said:

"Do not associate my name with anything you do. You are extremists, and you've hurt the Republican Party much more than the Democrats have"

Real conservatives believe in freedom first, faith second.

streiff said...

This is hogwash.

Goldwater's contribution was pretty much limited to a humiliating defeat at the hands of Lyndon Johnson which paved the way for Ronald Reagan.

Now you might wish to claim that Reagan was in some way an ideological successor to Reagan but that would be silly.

By the end of his career Barry Goldwater was no more conservative than most Democrats.

Conservatism is not libertarianism. Far from it.

The fact that you seem to be totally disinterested in the history of the modern conservative movement, I don't think you have the credentials to define a "real conservative."

The Waterman said...

Sir, I think you are the one far more mistaken with regards to the modern conservative movement.

The conservative movement is one of fundamental principles, an ideological core around which stances on issues are built. Goldwater established those principles when he led the opposition to Johnson and the big government democrats. Those principles informed true conservatives through Reagan.

Unfortunately he made a Faustian bargain when he reached out to the Religious Right. Under the inauspicious influence of the likes of Falwell, Robertson, and others the Republican party diverged from the conservative movement. They began to care more about the fictional concept of "family values" and preserving an outdated moral code drawn from Christian teachings than preserving the true American value of liberty. They encouraged the Republicans to rely on the coercive power of government to fix society's problem, and eventually convinced them that it was the best way.

Now we reap the fruit of this alliance in the numerous failures of our current president, from the prescription drug benefit (the biggest expanding of the welfare state since probably LBJ) to the mess called No Child Left Behind to the pointless debates over non-issues like gay marriage and gays in the military. And worse looms on the horizon with Republican candidates like Mike Huckabee actually being considered viable.

Barry Goldwater didn't become less conservative, the Republican party did. It left behind the conservative movement, with its emphasis on personal liberty and extremely limited federal government and turned to big government "fixes" to problems.

I seriously think you have mistaken the conservative movement with the Republican party and invite you to prove me wrong if you think you can.

streiff said...


The reason that Goldwater's brand of conservatism died out was that it couldn't win elections as well as being outside the mainstream of American political thought. It is kind of funny that Ron Paul's acolytes are trying to grasp this mantle in a futile attempt to achieve legitimacy.

I would address all your arguments but I found someone has already done it for me.

The Waterman said...

Well now I see the problem with your thinking. As I supposed, you're conflating conservatism with the Republican party.

Conservatism is an ideological movement, not a pragmatic one. To say you are a conservative is to say you embrace a certain set of philosophic positions. Simply put, conservatism isn't about winning or losing elections, it's about how one thinks about life, the individual, and government.

The Republican party is what is concerned with elections and other such pragmatic concerns.

If your primary concern is the electability of a stance then that's fine, shift with the tides to remain electable, just don't call it conservatism.

Stances of ideology cannot shift and still be considered to be the same ideology. There is only one type of conservatism, Barry Goldwater's - anything else is simply something attempting to benefit from its legacy. Like I said, I don't care if Andy Harris or the Republican party want to shift stances in order to be more electable, I'd just like them to stop pretending they're still conservative.

And for the record, I don't think it constitutes much of a counter-argument to simply post a link to a site dealing with fallacies without explicating further just what fallacy you think I'm engaging in.

Mike said...

Just a small note for correction, Mike Brown is the campaign manager for Pipkin.

buffalo bull said...

EJ Pipkin voted for the O’Malley budget. Stick a fork in him, he’s DONE!!

Anonymous said...

Yes, he did. And both Harris and Pipkin voted for Ehrlich's budget which was just as bad and included most of the things that Harris has criticized in the O'Malley budget, including the free needles program and state funded abortions. As far as I can tell the main difference is that Harris has been voting to prep for his bid for office while Pipkin actually votes consistently and hasn't tried to hide his real voting record.

buffalo bull said...

EJ Pipkin voted with the dems for the O'malley budget and then voted against the tax increase to fund it. You call that consistent???

Anonymous said...

Well to begin with you might want to get your facts straight. The special session tax increases weren't to fund O'Malley's budget, they were to fund what might happen in his next budget. If the tax increases were denied then he would have had a much harder time increasing spending when the regular session and new budget come around.

And even if the tax increases were to fund the budget from this past budget, it would still be consistent. Pipkin proposed over $1,000,000,000 in spending cuts, offering a much more conservative approach than simply raising taxes like you seem to think he needed to in order to be consistent.

buffalo bull said...

Yu can spin it however yu want. The fact is EJ Pipkin broke with the republican and voted for the Omalley budge! He's DONE!

QAC Republican said...

Ooh, so that must be why the Senate Minority Leader endorsed EJ Pipkin rather than Andy Harris.

buffalo bull said...

7 of 8 Maryland senators who represent part or whole of the 1st district endored Andy Harris. They are in touch with the voters of the 1st district.

Anonymous said...

7 of the 14 republicans voted for the "O'Malley Budget" as you call it, including 3 who endorsed Harris. Not to mention that both the Minority leader in the House and the Senate, Del. O'Donnell and Sen. Brinkley, voted for what you call the O'Malley Budget. Not to pile on, but 32 of the 37 House Republicans voted for that same "O'Malley Budget".
But yet you still say that Pipkin "broke with the republicans"?
I think that you are very misguided, and down right inaccurate on your facts, just like the candidate that you support!

bud said...

Harris thinks standing with a certain political party makes him some good conservative. In reality, that proves he's only a lapdog partisan. Go Pipkin!

bud said...

Buffalo Bill,

Six senators signed the endorsement letter. Only three live in the 1st district. Like I said on Griffiths blog, someone may need to tell Simonaire he doesn't live in District 1. I seriously don't think he knows.

Marc said...

I was actually called by the polling company that did this poll. One of the questions in there was whether or not you agreed with the statement that Pipkin entering the race ensured that Gilchrest would be re-elected. I'd be interested in seeing the poll results to that question.

bud said...


Harris people will say yes to that question. It seems to be their built in excuse. Most casual voters probably haven't thought about it one way or another.

That said, I long predicted a Gilchrest win. This poll makes me even more confident of the same 6 weeks outside the primary.

Mike Netherland said...

So Bud,
Your support of Pipkin is your way of fulfilling your own prophesy? "Harris people will say yes to that." I would say that accounts for everyone with a functioning brain stem. This is what we should ask: Does E.J. Pipkin have a functioning brain stem? Is the self-defeating concept of splitting the ticket utterly foreign to him?

Yes, which means Pipkin is intellectually unfit for command.

No, which means he really wants to see Gilchrest returned to Congress for another term. I think we should examine this latter, more probable scenario.