NRSC, RNC quietly moved money into Massachusetts last two weeks

posted at 1:36 pm on January 19, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

When Scott Brown began to get national attention, many people wondered why the Republican Party organizations didn’t make a public splash.  Headliners didn’t make appearances with Brown, while Barack Obama and Bill Clinton stumped for Martha Coakley.  Michael Steele and the NRSC took some heat for ignoring the race, although Brown himself said that he was happy with the support he was receiving.  Now it comes out that the national GOP deliberately played their cards very close to the vest — and sent a lot of money to Brown while Democrats self-destructed:

Working quietly and under the radar, the National Republican Senatorial Committee shifted $500,000 to the Massachusetts GOP in the weeks leading up to Tuesday’s dramatic election, according to Republican sources.

The NRSC transfer, made in several dispersals beginning on Jan. 7, were used for phone and mail get-out-the-vote operations targeted at independent voters, said Rob Jesmer, the NRSC’s executive director.

NRSC officials kept quiet about the money transfers, despite public taunts from their Senate Democratic counterparts that the GOP leadership was declining to put money behind Brown’s candidacy.

Stuart Rothenberg reports in Roll Call that the RNC also took a more active support role than first presumed:

While some journalists and political strategists across the partisan and ideological spectrum (including those at the Club for Growth in a press release attacking the NRSC) criticized the GOP’s campaign arm last week for not putting money into the race, the reality is quite different.

In fact, the NRSC had, a full week earlier, transferred $500,000 to the Massachusetts Republican Party to support Brown’s candidacy. For obvious reasons, the committee opted to keep that move quiet.

And the NRSC also got the Republican National Committee to agree to send funds to the Massachusetts GOP.

This was a brilliant move by both the NRSC and the RNC.  They didn’t fall into a Democratic trap by trumpeting their involvement with Brown, who wanted to show as much independence as possible.  Coakley and Obama spent Sunday making Brown look like a tool of the Tea Party movement and the GOP national machine, but it was Coakley getting bailed out by Democratic heavyweights from outside Massachusetts.

On the other hand, this shows the limitation of national Republican help, especially in deep-blue constituencies.  Voters don’t want a top-down presence from committees like the RNC and the NRSC; they want to choose their own candidates locally through an active primary process and have support for their choices.  In Massachusetts and other places like it, that won’t mean a firebreathing social conservative, but it should mean — and almost certainly will mean in 2010 — a fiscal conservative committed to curtailing the power of federal government and the overreach of the Obama agenda.

Rothenberg notes that this win will give the GOP serious momentum, and cause more Democratic retirements:

A Brown victory — or even a narrow Coakley win in the mid-single digits — could have significant ramifications. First, it could well produce a flurry of Democratic retirements. If Democrats couldn’t hold Kennedy’s seat rather easily with the state attorney general, some Democratic Members will worry, how the heck can they win in November in competitive districts.

GOP strategists are already compiling a list of possible retirees if Brown wins, including Reps. John Spratt (S.C.), Allen Boyd (Fla.) and Jim Matheson (Utah) and Sen. Blanche Lincoln (Ark.).

A victory by the Republican in the special election could dissuade some Democratic incumbents from investing 10 months in a re-election bid that suddenly would seem dramatically less likely of success.

A strong Brown showing could also lead to another round of GOP recruiting successes, as candidates who have been on the fence, or initially rejected appeals to run, decide that a Republican wave is building for November and they better get on it.

The competence of the NRSC (which was in short supply when they endorsed Charlie Crist over Marco Rubio in the Florida primary) will certainly raise confidence in some potential candidates and get more people in the game for the GOP.  Retirements may follow on the Democratic side of the aisle, but they would have to happen rather quickly, as primaries are already approaching in some states.  We’ll probably know the scope of the impact by the end of March at the latest.

Meanwhile … job well done.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

By staying quietly in the willy-wacks this time, they’ll never know for sure which races are getting heavy backing in the future. A VERY wise move.

GoldenEagle4444 on January 19, 2010 at 2:06 PM

It might not work as well in a regular general election as in a quick special like this one. But the principle is the same – don’t hang the national Republican label around a candidate when the winning strategy is for him or her to be the independent insurgent running against the machine. Don’t waste money on a flashy and likely counterproductive TV ad campaign when you can spend the money more effectively building a ground operation.

I can see this approach being effective in Connecticut and Pennsylvania this year, and maybe even California.

rockmom on January 19, 2010 at 2:16 PM

I’m not convinced that spending by the national GOP would be the kiss of death, even in Mass. It would turn the race into more of an organization vs. organization battle, but if a candidate can keep the focus on the candidates and issues, like Brown did, being tied to the GOP won’t matter.

Voters probably assume that Brown was getting lots of RNC support, anyway.

hawksruleva on January 19, 2010 at 2:17 PM

i propose a hotair swingers election celebration party

is that bad?

blatantblue on January 19, 2010 at 2:19 PM

Indeed brilliant.

And indeed small in comparison to a week of million dollar donation days. The power to put this candidate in the race was not the NRSC or RNC, but those who contributed their hard earned money to a good candidate. More money than the Democrats, ACORN and SEIU could pile in…

If we can congratulate the Republicans for a brilliant strategy, we must credit the hard work to all of those who contributed, went to phone banks and are, today, taking like minded voters to the polls. That is hard work and a job well done.

ajacksonian on January 19, 2010 at 2:19 PM

NY23 was a lesson learned. Let elections unfold rather than make them into national referendums. They may BE national referendums, but you tag it that, it’s going to skew the politics.

AnninCA on January 19, 2010 at 2:19 PM

lol totally kidding

anyway

carl cameron was trying to be like

“ohhhh you cant really make a prediction”

but you could tell by his face he knew brown was gonna

BROWN BAG IT BABY

blatantblue on January 19, 2010 at 2:19 PM

i propose a hotair swingers election celebration party

is that bad?

blatantblue on January 19, 2010 at 2:19 PM

Funny one.

AnninCA on January 19, 2010 at 2:19 PM

blatantblue on January 19, 2010 at 2:19 PM

Have a beer… [_]?

becki51758 on January 19, 2010 at 2:20 PM

oh did i say swingers?

i mean tea party

blatantblue on January 19, 2010 at 2:22 PM

Mew

acat on January 19, 2010 at 1:54 PM

point taken

cmsinaz on January 19, 2010 at 2:23 PM

I believe they released it at just the right time. Had they waited until the outcome was certain, the Dems could have caused more of a fuss about the GOP acting covertly at a time when we are complianing about a lack of transparency.

jay12 on January 19, 2010 at 2:08 PM

Most pols don’t file all the paperwork until weeks after the election. The transparency is there — but the telegraphed punch to the enemy isn’t.

unclesmrgol on January 19, 2010 at 2:23 PM

NY23 was a lesson learned. Let elections unfold rather than make them into national referendums. They may BE national referendums, but you tag it that, it’s going to skew the politics.

AnninCA on January 19, 2010 at 2:19 PM

Exactly. I was so happy when I heard Brown had a rally with John Ratzenberger and Curt Shilling. Not even the Dems can say they are some nefarious out of state influence.

Speedwagon82 on January 19, 2010 at 2:24 PM

blatent blue
what time are we raising our glasses?

cmsinaz on January 19, 2010 at 2:26 PM

Why? It’s too late for Coakley to use it against Brown, and it’s hard to blame these guys for wanting to gloat a little after the abuse they have been taking from conservative pundits and blogs over this race. I see it as a big dump of salt in the DNC’s wound too – the DNC has just been outsmarted x1000.

rockmom on January 19, 2010 at 1:58 PM

No, it isn’t too late. My niece is a Democratic operative and I know for a fact that twitter, facebook, etc. are all arrows in the quiver. Couple that with GOTV robocalls on how the RNC is trying to steal a “local” election and there it is.

unclesmrgol on January 19, 2010 at 2:26 PM

shhhh be vewy vewy quiet. we hunt’n libwals.

moonbatkiller on January 19, 2010 at 2:26 PM

blatent blue
what time are we raising our glasses?

cmsinaz on January 19, 2010 at 2:26 PM

i think thats up to Ed or ApplePundit

blatantblue on January 19, 2010 at 2:27 PM

Speaking of Sarah, she was invisible in this race. Or was she? On January 15th she asked Union members to buck their leadership. Nicely oblique but with potentially large ramifications in MA. Now do you suppose that Sarah just didn’t care at all about the Brown race? Or do you suppose perhaps she decided a low profile was best, just like Michael Steele?

Metanis on January 19, 2010 at 2:27 PM

I do not think the GOP was being particularly covert on this one (at least the RNC wasn’t). May be quiet, but definitely not hidden. As early as 10 days ago, Michael Steele told Laura Ingraham on air (during his booktour interview with her) that Brown was getting support from the National GOP.
Because unless you’re serious about stealth, you do not disclose electioneering intrigue to Laura Ingraham–not while her national audience surely eavesdrops.

ConScribe on January 19, 2010 at 2:28 PM

500,000 is peanuts in such a big race. If NRSC thinks they are going to take credit…. I have this to say… Not One Frakking Penny.

antisocial on January 19, 2010 at 2:29 PM

The NRSC transfer, made in several dispersals beginning on Jan. 7,….

I wouldn’t give the NRSC or RNC too much credit. I seem to recall a lot of heat being put on the NRSC/RNC before the 7th to get involved.

Indeed, without that early heat, I doubt that Brown would’ve seen anything beyond a token amount.

steveegg on January 19, 2010 at 2:29 PM

You mean loud, Sarah Palinesque, conservative, out of state endorsements might not be the best way to win a deep blue state? Wish we had realized that for NY-23.

Speedwagon82 on January 19, 2010 at 1:47 PM

Oh be quiet, NY23 was altogether a different dynamic.

True_King on January 19, 2010 at 2:30 PM

i think thats up to Ed or ApplePundit

blatantblue on January 19, 2010 at 2:27 PM

sounds good…

cmsinaz on January 19, 2010 at 2:30 PM

cmsinaz

or whenever we get confirmation of a victory

blatantblue on January 19, 2010 at 2:31 PM

kcarpenter on January 19, 2010 at 2:09 PM

Well done, GOP. (Good post.)

Nichevo on January 19, 2010 at 2:33 PM

Speaking of Sarah, she was invisible in this race. Or was she? On January 15th she asked Union members to buck their leadership. Nicely oblique but with potentially large ramifications in MA. Now do you suppose that Sarah just didn’t care at all about the Brown race? Or do you suppose perhaps she decided a low profile was best, just like Michael Steele?
Metanis on January 19, 2010 at 2:27 PM

I’m sure she’s around, but is, shall we say ‘maintaining a low profile’.

She did post this on her twitter account:

MA Senate Race: here’s hoping Mr. Brown goes to Washington…in a pick-up truck,no less!MA pls vote tomrrw & elect a hardworking independent.

Juno77 on January 19, 2010 at 2:34 PM

blatantblue on January 19, 2010 at 2:31 PM

will be waiting for your hi-sign

:-)

cmsinaz on January 19, 2010 at 2:34 PM

Taking money from the RNC, RCCC or RSCC makes a candidate beholding to the “party” and subject to the party line, not to the candidates constituents.

Tom

marinetbryant on January 19, 2010 at 2:35 PM

Speaking of Sarah, she was invisible in this race. Or was she? On January 15th she asked Union members to buck their leadership. Nicely oblique but with potentially large ramifications in MA. Now do you suppose that Sarah just didn’t care at all about the Brown race? Or do you suppose perhaps she decided a low profile was best, just like Michael Steele?

Metanis on January 19, 2010 at 2:27 PM

Shhhh! Don’t dare question THE SARAH and her nationwide popularity!

It wasn’t just her though. Glenn Beck made Hoffman look like they were attached at the hip. Theres a reason you didn’t see Rush Limbaugh going to campaign rallies in the 90s. He knows that too much support would make the candidates look like they were beholden to him.

Speedwagon82 on January 19, 2010 at 2:35 PM

cmsinaz on January 19, 2010 at 2:34 PM

what do u drink, sir/ma’am?

blatantblue on January 19, 2010 at 2:35 PM

Never stand in the way of success and don’t intervene when your opponent is digging his/her own hole. I had a feeling that the Republican Party was funneling dollars into Brown’s campaign on the quiet. It was smart to let Scott Brown continue his winning LOCAL campaign without drawing attention to the national GOP.

Brown on!

Old Fritz on January 19, 2010 at 2:37 PM

NY23 was a lesson learned. Let elections unfold rather than make them into national referendums. They may BE national referendums, but you tag it that, it’s going to skew the politics.

AnninCA on January 19, 2010 at 2:19 PM

Exactly. I was so happy when I heard Brown had a rally with John Ratzenberger and Curt Shilling. Not even the Dems can say they are some nefarious out of state influence.

Speedwagon82 on January 19, 2010 at 2:24 PM

Losing shyzzyfava was worth it.

the_nile on January 19, 2010 at 2:37 PM

Now do you suppose that Sarah just didn’t care at all about the Brown race? Or do you suppose perhaps she decided a low profile was best, just like Michael Steele?

Metanis on January 19, 2010 at 2:27 PM

Deliberate low profile. Every situation is going to be different. Since Scott Brown isn’t a heavy-duty conservative, it makes sense for her to stay out of it.

disa on January 19, 2010 at 2:37 PM

NY-23 was not a deep blue district. It is quite conservative.

MarkTheGreat on January 19, 2010 at 2:06 PM

No district that considered someone like Scozzafava can possibly be called conservative. Republican maybe. But not conservative. Besides, McHugh left the seat to take a position with Obama. That doesn’t scream conservative either.

Speedwagon82 on January 19, 2010 at 2:39 PM

Probably doesn’t add up to Scuzzyfava’a cool million from the RNC.

Valiant on January 19, 2010 at 2:40 PM

Exactly. I was so happy when I heard Brown had a rally with John Ratzenberger and Curt Shilling. Not even the Dems can say they are some nefarious out of state influence.

Speedwagon82 on January 19, 2010 at 2:24 PM

Brown appeared with Doug Flutie, Curt Schilling, John Ratzenberger, and couple of former New England Patriots players – all working class heroes in Massachusetts – on the same day that Coakley appeared with Obama, John Kerry, Menino, Vicki Kennedy, Ed Markey – nothing but politicians. The optics could not have been better for Brown or worse for Coakley.

Now imagine if Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney, and Michael Steele had been on that stage with Brown instead of Flutie and Schilling. I just threw up a little while typing that, it is so bad.

rockmom on January 19, 2010 at 2:40 PM

Now do you suppose that Sarah just didn’t care at all about the Brown race? Or do you suppose perhaps she decided a low profile was best, just like Michael Steele?

Metanis on January 19, 2010 at 2:27 PM

Deliberate low profile. Every situation is going to be different. Since Scott Brown isn’t a heavy-duty conservative, it makes sense for her to stay out of it.

disa on January 19, 2010 at 2:37 PM

I think Brown asked for low profile.

the_nile on January 19, 2010 at 2:40 PM

If Michael Steele was behind this strategy I can finally give him some credit.

Buy Danish on January 19, 2010 at 1:39 PM

Doubt it. But if Mike was behind this, I’m impressed.

Sapwolf on January 19, 2010 at 2:41 PM

In case nobody posted it yet, I think this is madatory viewing as we hope for the Hail Mary.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3ykWbu2Gl0

Sapwolf on January 19, 2010 at 2:43 PM

Good to hear. And a fair display of common sense.

If were going to conduct a ‘deep raid’ into enemy territory,

I wouldn’t be using a brass band as my lead element.

That being said, I’d still rather have Blackwell as the head of the RNC.

CPT. Charles on January 19, 2010 at 2:43 PM

No, it isn’t too late. My niece is a Democratic operative and I know for a fact that twitter, facebook, etc. are all arrows in the quiver. Couple that with GOTV robocalls on how the RNC is trying to steal a “local” election and there it is.

unclesmrgol on January 19, 2010 at 2:26 PM

This will be a nice bone for the nutroots to chew on and delude themselves that they can still use it, but is it really going to get 50,000 Democrats to the polls this afternoon for Coakely?

rockmom on January 19, 2010 at 2:44 PM

I am here at the campaign and I can tell you that both the RNC and NRSC have brought a few dozen staff workers from all areas in the past two weeks. They have been fabulous and their knowledge is worth more than a check.

Ricki on January 19, 2010 at 2:44 PM

NY23 was a lesson learned. Let elections unfold rather than make them into national referendums. They may BE national referendums, but you tag it that, it’s going to skew the politics.

AnninCA on January 19, 2010 at 2:19 PM

And, typically, you apparently have learned the wrong lesson (yet again). NY-23 went badly because the candidate was selected by 12 people and was not representative of the voter base. This process that led to the wrong candidate running as a Republican. NY-23 isn’t a thing like Brown’s success in running for the Senate.

highhopes on January 19, 2010 at 2:48 PM

That being said, I’d still rather have Blackwell as the head of the RNC.

CPT. Charles on January 19, 2010 at 2:43 PM

My vote is for the reincarnation of Lee Atwater. :-0

highhopes on January 19, 2010 at 2:50 PM

And guess who Mikey has talked to and been seen with?

Hmmmmmmm

Sapwolf on January 19, 2010 at 2:51 PM

Speaking of Sarah, she was invisible in this race. Or was she? On January 15th she asked Union members to buck their leadership. Nicely oblique but with potentially large ramifications in MA. Now do you suppose that Sarah just didn’t care at all about the Brown race? Or do you suppose perhaps she decided a low profile was best, just like Michael Steele?
Metanis on January 19, 2010 at 2:27 PM

Smart move by Sarah. She knows that she is a polarizing figure, and her involvement in Massachusetts could be used by Coakley against Brown, who is not as socially conservative as she (Palin) is. Since Coakley’s ties to Obama’s far-left agenda were bringing HER down, why should Sarah give Brown similar problems?

Sarah Palin is a lot more astute politically now than she was in 2008, having learned from bitter experience. She will join causes when she can help, and stay on the sidelines when her presence would be unwelcome.

Steve Z on January 19, 2010 at 2:52 PM

NY23 was a lesson learned. Let elections unfold rather than make them into national referendums. They may BE national referendums, but you tag it that, it’s going to skew the politics.

AnninCA on January 19, 2010 at 2:19 PM

And, typically, you apparently have learned the wrong lesson (yet again). NY-23 went badly because the candidate was selected by 12 people and was not representative of the voter base. This process that led to the wrong candidate running as a Republican. NY-23 isn’t a thing like Brown’s success in running for the Senate.

highhopes on January 19, 2010 at 2:48 PM

Thank you for correcting Ann.

Sapwolf on January 19, 2010 at 2:52 PM

Follow the money:

Intrade:
Brown 83.5
Coakley 16.9

And Healthcare stocks are up 5%

Dale on January 19, 2010 at 2:53 PM

I am here at the campaign and I can tell you that both the RNC and NRSC have brought a few dozen staff workers from all areas in the past two weeks. They have been fabulous and their knowledge is worth more than a check.

Ricki on January 19, 2010 at 2:44 PM

Now you understand the frustration of conservatives and other GOP members in NY-23 when these same people were doing all they could to elect Dede S. up until she actually dropped out of the race late in the campaign.

Maybe, just maybe, they are figuring out that they can help with money and assistance but quietly so that we don’t nationalize elections by openly butting in too much.

Sapwolf on January 19, 2010 at 2:55 PM

I think nationalizing the election might be good in some places. Run against Pelosi and Reid. As I recall, that won an election in KY.

Dale on January 19, 2010 at 2:58 PM

Smart move by Sarah. She knows that she is a polarizing figure, and her involvement in Massachusetts could be used by Coakley against Brown, who is not as socially conservative as she (Palin) is. Since Coakley’s ties to Obama’s far-left agenda were bringing HER down, why should Sarah give Brown similar problems?

Sarah Palin is a lot more astute politically now than she was in 2008, having learned from bitter experience. She will join causes when she can help, and stay on the sidelines when her presence would be unwelcome.

Steve Z on January 19, 2010 at 2:52 PM

You are so right.

The Arctic Fox is watching at a safe distance from the Bear of MA political rebellion as it eats the caribou corpse of the Kennedy and Dem arrogance.

She ain’t the fox for nothing.

Sapwolf on January 19, 2010 at 2:58 PM

This was a brilliant move by both the NRSC and the RNC.

This is not the RNC I thought I knew.

Good job fellas!

29Victor on January 19, 2010 at 2:58 PM

WOW! Rush is already over??? Wha…

OmahaConservative on January 19, 2010 at 2:59 PM

NY23 was a lesson learned. Let elections unfold rather than make them into national referendums. They may BE national referendums, but you tag it that, it’s going to skew the politics.

AnninCA on January 19, 2010 at 2:19 PM

Very true. The statement at all politics are local is as much a strategy as it is a reality: win locally, and we’ll win nationally. This race was a perfectly-played hand by Brown and all of his supporters, organized and otherwise. Well done, all!

Animator Girl on January 19, 2010 at 2:59 PM

See? Cheers to Steele & the RNC for going low-profile. That is EXACTLY what needed to happen.

John the Libertarian on January 19, 2010 at 3:00 PM

*that all, not “at”

Animator Girl on January 19, 2010 at 3:00 PM

This will be a nice bone for the nutroots to chew on and delude themselves that they can still use it, but is it really going to get 50,000 Democrats to the polls this afternoon for Coakely?

rockmom on January 19, 2010 at 2:44 PM

Yes, those people will be dead people, but yes.

Sapwolf on January 19, 2010 at 3:00 PM

The competence of the NRSC (which was in short supply when they endorsed Charlie Crist over Marco Rubio in the Florida primary) will certainly raise confidence in some potential candidates and get more people in the game for the GOP.

They still suck the Big One. They are supporting Mark Kirk in Illinois, without hesitation or regret. Here’s what they are getting for their efforts:

- a NARAL rating of 100%,
- an NRA rating of “F”,
- a sponsor of hate crimes nonsense,
- a Cap and Trade vote,
- a vote in favor of partial-birth abortion.
- an American Conservative Union lifetime rating of 54 (votes with the GOP 54% of the time),
- a two years-running ACU rating below 50%, which means he has been a net asset to Nancy Pelosi for over two years.

And scum like David Frum would tell you that we need guys like Kirk, while John Cornyn sends him your money. Sick.

Jaibones on January 19, 2010 at 3:00 PM

Sarah, McDonnell, and now Brown know to stay away from really hot-button issues that are not important to the people during a particular election.

The issues this election are: Obamacare, arrogance, elitism, and nepotism.

When the English fought the French at Agincourt, it is believed the French launched their attack in very muddy ground and where there was a narrowing of the approach to the English line. This caused a huge pileup of French knights and others and they in effect ran over each other. The English took advantage and did not interrupt the French mistake as they wallowed in the mud.

Amazing how easy it is to kill a downed knight in armor in deep mud with something as simple as a 6′inch knife.

Sapwolf on January 19, 2010 at 3:04 PM

$500.000 isn’t that much compared with the online +$1.000.000 brown has been raising EVERY DAY…

mooseburger on January 19, 2010 at 3:05 PM

I really, really hate to say it, but….

I told you so.

rockmom on January 19, 2010 at 1:41 PM

Me, too. And I’m not sure why it’s a surprise – this was floated a couple of weeks ago IIRC.

Missy on January 19, 2010 at 3:05 PM

Here is hoping (unlike donks) the leaders can learn.

Sir Napsalot on January 19, 2010 at 3:06 PM

blatantblue on January 19, 2010 at 2:35 PM

ma’am will be drinking new castle and you?

cmsinaz on January 19, 2010 at 3:06 PM

Shock and Awe

El_Terrible on January 19, 2010 at 3:07 PM

Jaibones on January 19, 2010 at 3:00 PM

I agree this is one candidate the RNC and NRSC need to dump. He is almost a Dede S.

We need to send the message. Illinois Republicans and the TPM in Illinois need to step up.

Heck, even a moderate would have a shot there the way things are going. But Kirk? He’s a lib.

Sapwolf on January 19, 2010 at 3:07 PM

This was stupid to let the cat out of the bag today. The election is still going on. Could be used to motivate the dems sitting at home.

Mirimichi on January 19, 2010 at 3:09 PM

CPT. Charles on January 19, 2010 at 2:43 PM

I agree. I wanted Blackwell too.

Sapwolf on January 19, 2010 at 3:11 PM

The election is still going on. Could be used to motivate the dems sitting at home.

Mirimichi on January 19, 2010 at 3:09 PM

I’m more concerned about the large contingent of Dems sitting in coffins than I am those who would be motivated by discovery of RNC influence in the election.

highhopes on January 19, 2010 at 3:16 PM

stay away from really hot-button issues that are not important to the people during a particular election.

The issues this election are: Obamacare, arrogance, elitism, and nepotism.

Sapwolf on January 19, 2010 at 3:04 PM

I’d put fiscal conservatism and the economy on the list somewhere. That being said, it’s not just sticking to the issues that matter but it is to present a clear unambiguous position. McCain lost, in part, because he merely echoed Obama instead of staking out any real differences. In today’s election, Brown was clear what he was going to do to Obamacare if given the chance.

highhopes on January 19, 2010 at 3:20 PM

highhopes on January 19, 2010 at 3:16 PM

Ah! If only you knew

ConScribe on January 19, 2010 at 3:24 PM

blatantblue on January 19, 2010 at 2:35 PM
ma’am will be drinking new castle and you?
cmsinaz on January 19, 2010 at 3:06 PM

Choice

I’ll be having some Long Island red wine :D

blatantblue on January 19, 2010 at 3:24 PM

Another look at the Grand Old Party?

pseudonominus on January 19, 2010 at 3:24 PM

Heck, even a moderate would have a shot there the way things are going. But Kirk? He’s a lib.

Sapwolf on January 19, 2010 at 3:07 PM

Exactly. The Illinois GOP is a complete disaster, and here we have a race to replace Roland Burris, the stupidest, most ignorant, crazy Senator in recent Senate history (which is really saying a lot). The Dems are running a 34 year old crooked punk whose primary claim to qualification is that he plays basketball with O’Bozo. He is State Treasurer of a bankrupt state, and worked for his Daddy’s bank, which lends money to the mob. His only competitors in the Dem primary are complete nobodies.

Anyone with a few bucks and a reasonably conservative record would have been a shoe-in for the GOP nomination. And we have Mark Kirk and a commercial property developer. So sad.

Jaibones on January 19, 2010 at 3:31 PM

I’ll be having some Long Island red wine :D

blatantblue on January 19, 2010 at 3:24 PM

:)

cmsinaz on January 19, 2010 at 3:32 PM

:)

cmsinaz on January 19, 2010 at 3:32 PM

cant wait
just need someone to share it with :[

blatantblue on January 19, 2010 at 3:37 PM

Was this, in fact, Steele’s idea or did he just agree to it. He just doesn’t seem like the type to miss an opportunity to toot his own horn. I need to see more than this to change my tune on Steele.

SKYFOX on January 19, 2010 at 4:09 PM

I hope they play CA as smartly.

We have 3 viable candidates for Bab’s seat–let the people listen to debate then decide.

PattyJ on January 19, 2010 at 4:17 PM

You mean loud, Sarah Palinesque, conservative, out of state endorsements might not be the best way to win a deep blue state? Wish we had realized that for NY-23.

NY-23 was actually a success story. Hoffman entered the race late, from a 3rd party, was ignored until Palin and the netroots upped his polling numbers, until the last week the GOP poured millions of dollars into Scozzafava’s campaign, then she withdrew because Hoffman took away her voters (success, no?), then she endorsed the Democrat opponent a few days before the election. Hoffman also has negative charisma, and had never run for office before. The Dem had political experience and was the most personally attractive candidate in the race. Also Hoffman was tarred as being “from outside the district” even though he grew up in that area, lived there all his life, and his neighborhood was gerrymandered out from under him.

With all that headwind, Hoffman lost by only 3000 votes. If even 2-3 of those factors had been different, he might very well have won.

So I think the Palin endorsement et al worked in that race. But it would not work in MA. My guess (totally a wild guess) is Palin asked Brown if she could help and he said no, and she understood and stood down. He did tell everyone else to stay out of it (visibly that is) except Rudy. I know Romney sent out mailers for Brown, but Brown probably told him to maintain a low profile too, or Romney understood that already.

YehuditTX on January 19, 2010 at 5:40 PM

I sent the RNC a scathing email early this month, asking where their support of Brown was.

Guess I wasn’t the only one. Good going everyone!!!

13Girl on January 19, 2010 at 6:41 PM

Comment pages: 1 2