February 2, 2009

Brady Campaign Tilts Results to Claim False Candidate Success Rates

AUSTIN, Tex. -- Howard Nemerov, writing in the Austin Gun Rights Examiner, has an excellent critique of how the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence fudged its numbers to claim too-high win rates of the anti-gun group's endorsed candidates:

He writes, "In their recent publication, "Guns & the 2008 Elections: Common Sense Gun Laws Won, the NRA Lost, & What It Means," the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence declared that the 2008 federal elections were a victory for gun control:

"The 2008 elections demonstrated – not for the first time – that voters support candidates who favor strong gun laws and reject the gun lobby’s extremist agenda.

What is undeniable is that the NRA [National Rifle Association] could not sway the presidential election – or the nomination battles, or races in the Senate, House…

To determine the veracity of Brady’s claims, election results from the House of Representatives will be examined here because the larger number of election contests (435) gives a more accurate picture of the electorate’s view of the 2008 election cycle.

"Brady was proud of the fact that over 90% of their endorsed House candidates won. Indeed, Brady-endorsed candidates had a 91.3% winning percentage, besting the 86.6% for NRA-endorsed candidates. On the face of it, Brady appears to have won handily, but how the results were produced provides an interesting story."

To read the rest of the column, click here.

Comments (11)

I stand corrected. "Most Readers" will be negatively affected by comments that start off with fairy tale figures.

Posted by: JWallace | February 11, 2009 6:24 PM    Report this comment

TBill, the opening statement in your post should setup your communication in such a manner that it allows information to flow effortlessly. You're prepping the mind of the reader. It has a negative affect on the reader when you start off with fairy tales that do not correspond with the subject line.

Posted by: JWallace | February 10, 2009 11:59 PM    Report this comment

Thanks for clearing that up. It makes sense now.

I'd like to suggest, however, that it actually does make sense to have stockpiles of survival supplies in several local areas around you, if only for protection from natural disasters. I have to admit, natural disaster is statistically far more likely than an attack from the BATFEces. I live in a rural area prone to earthquake, wildfire, and really, really bad weather. Help is a long way away. We just had the worst ice storm in recorded history two weeks ago, and there are still people here without power, with fallen trees in their living rooms. Some food, clothing, water, a gun & ammo, and shelter, stockpiled in a couple of different areas of the county is a practical way to survive when your house becomes uninhabitable.

Stockpiling is not just for conspiracy theorists.

Posted by: Gaviota | February 9, 2009 10:06 AM    Report this comment

Above statement should read; "I just do not see the need to stockpile weapons, ammo and food in caves or bunkers". I have trouble adjusting from a seventeen inch wide screen monitor to a three inch Blackberry Screen.

Posted by: JWallace | February 8, 2009 8:00 AM    Report this comment

Above statement should read; "I just do not see the need to stockpile weapons, ammo and food in caves or bunkers". I have trouble adjusting from a seventeen inch wide screen monitor to a three inch Blackberry Screen.

Posted by: JWallace | February 8, 2009 8:00 AM    Report this comment

Gaviota, sorry for the confusion. 1. Common Sense Group, 2. NRA Group, 3. Extremist Group. I recapped at the bottom and failed to label apprpriately.I think there are a handful of good politicians out there that are capable of leading others in the morally correct direction when it comes down to the 2nd amendment. Basically, I will not pay a group to defend our constitutional rights If it gets to that point, I think we will need to take up arms and replace the current government with one that works for "We the People" as addressed in the constitution. I actually like the stand that Texas has on the purchase of firearms. Buy as many as you can afford. I just do not see the need to stockpile food and ammo in caves or bunkers. This mindset would suggest you're on your own. If the 2nd amendment is taking away, we will come together and it will be reinstated.

Posted by: JWallace | February 7, 2009 9:51 PM    Report this comment

Jeff:
If I understand you correctly, you postulate the existence of three groups forming in response to predicted government action.
1) People who join groups
2) People who stockpile weapons
3) People who do neither.
I said I'm in group two, and asked what you will do. You said "If you're right, I'll most likely be making a transition to the third group."

I don't understand. I thought you were already IN group three.

So you're saying that if you are right, then there is no call for alarm, no need for giving money to the NRA, nor stockpiling guns. Everybody can just chill. If you are wrong, then the government will devolve into dictatorship, and in the chaos group two will have guns and the others won't. Is my understanding of your position correct?

Okay, now we come to the part about "greedy politicians without morals accept money from both sides..."

Are these the people from whom you expect common sense? The people who are going to "finally smarten up and read the Constitution as it was intentionally written"?

Respectfully, I suggest that your original prediction is extremely optimistic, and your general assumptions about government are mildly naive, because people in government who seek power don't operate according to your stated definition of common sense. Your statements are very logical and practical, but I'm pretty sure that the people who enter our government and mean to rule will ignore common sense even when it's in their best interests, and proceed along paths that advance THEIR interests, not ours.

That's why it's not a bad idea to have a small stockpile. Just in case. What do you think?

Posted by: Gaviota | February 7, 2009 8:09 PM    Report this comment

If you're right, I'll most likely be making a transition to the third group. You will be in the same boat, just less money in your pocket. I do not believe in bribing politicians to recognize my Constitutional Rights. Some greedy politicians without morals accept money from both sides and skillfully allow each side to win minor battles thus allowing the bribes to continue lining their bottomless pockets. Seems to me if you get rid of the corruption both sides will fade into past memory. And you can't get rid of the corruption if you contribute to it.

Posted by: JWallace | February 5, 2009 8:47 AM    Report this comment

I'm in #2. If I'm wrong, no harm, no foul.

If I'm right... Where will that "common sense theory" leave YOU?

Posted by: Gaviota | February 4, 2009 6:59 PM    Report this comment

I predict the government is going to finally smarten up and read the Constitution as it was intentionally written. You will start to see strict gun laws reversed (in favor of law abiding citizens) and more of a focus on behavioral patterns and how to prevent the mentally ill and criminals from gaining access to weapons. Logically, you can't disarm the public if you aren't equipped to provide full protection. Crime rates would increase drastically, there would be public outcry, followed by large groups of people taking action into their own hands, including dismantling of the government body. How do you keep the peace? You allow law abiding citizens to purchase handguns to protect themselves. If people feel protected, they're fairly happy. Some people fear that their rights will be taken away and join groups, who for a fee, profess to wage battles on their behalf to protect their rights. Some people go to the extreme and believe in government conspiracies and to ease their minds, stock pile weapons, ammo and food. But, I think most of us believe we have nothing to worry about because of the "common sense theory" listed above. What do you believe? I'm sure you can be placed in 1 of the 3 categories mentioned above.

Posted by: JWallace | February 3, 2009 6:19 PM    Report this comment

You can twist the numbers anyway you want, as far as I am concerned, the Brady Bunch did win in the 2008 elections. The general population are not concerned about gun rights because they have them, they will not be concerned until they are taken away. Anti-gun candidates have learned to keep their mouth shut on the issue. Additionally, people this election cycle voted due to race or the economy with gun rights far down the list. Only 5% of gun owners belong to the NRA, most gun owners do not have their eye on the ball. The anti-gunners do have their eye on the ball and are sneaking towards the end zone. The question is "How do you get the average gun owner aware and involved?"

Posted by: Robert J | February 2, 2009 12:55 PM    Report this comment

Add your comments ...

New to Gun Tests? Register for Free!

Already Registered? Log In