The NRCC has pulled the plug on its third incumbent in as many days. Rep. Knollenberg of MI-09, who until a few weeks ago seemed to be slightly favored in his re-election bid, will receive no help from his national party.
The NRCC had reserved more than $600,000 to be spend over the last two weeks of the campaign. It had already canceled the portion of that money that was intended to be used this week; now, it has also canceled next’s week media buy. This comes a few weeks after Knollenberg received a first blow when McCain abruptly pulled out of Michigan, undercutting Knollenberg’s hopes of relying on McCain’s ground game to turn out his own base. By contrast, the DCCC has already spent $1,6 million on behalf of Democratic candidate Gary Peters and the Obama campaign is still organizing in the Wolverine State.
Knollenberg is a well-established incumbent who would be very difficult to beat in a neutral environment, but the Democratic wave is now threatening to submerge him. Without the NRCC’s financial backing and the McCain campaign’s ground game, Knollenberg looks to be in a very precarious position and among the clearest victims yet of the GOP’s fundraising woes.
As if the NRCC did not have enough problems dealing with the difficult stategic positions it is facing, it is now facing harsh criticism from the Family Research Council, led by Tony Perkins. (Perkins played an important role last fall, you will recall, when the Religious Right was moving to sabotage Rudy Giuliani’s candidacy. Perkins was one of the most virulent anti-Rudy militants before issuing more positive statements about the former NYC Mayor.)
Today, Perkins voiced a protest against the NRCC’s decision to pull the plug on Reps. Bachmann and Musgrave’s campaigns. (Both incumbents are strong social conservatives.) “The left is attacking both of these outstanding women because they are true conservatives,” Perkins wrote. “This is no time to cut and run from a fight.” He called upon FRC members to no longer donate to the NRCC until it changed its decision on CO-04 and MN-06.
Now, this is unlikely to be a particularly effective method of blackmail. There are 11 days until Election Day, how much money is the NRCC expecting to raise from FRC members by Election Day? But it does illustrate the pressure the DCCC and NRCC find themselves under when the time comes for tough decisions as to which incumbents or challengers to fund and which ones to cut loose. This cycle, most of that pressure is falling on the Republican committees since their budgets force them to make more choices - and then deal with the consequences. After the NRSC decided to no longer spend money on Louisiana’s Senate race earlier this week, Sen. Vitter and Karl Rove quickly intervened to protest the decision - and the NRSC is now back on air.
Of course, the NRCC’s decision to cut funds in these districts is not driven by any disdain towards social conservatives but by hard math: The NRCC has very limited funds, and it has vulnerable districts poping up left and right. CO-04 has been rated lean take-over for weeks in my ratings; why would the NRCC invest there on an incumbent that has consistently underperformed in her district? The choice to not fund Bachmann’s race is more curious.
Bachmann hurt herself with her MSNBC rant, and that was enough to make the race highly competitive - not enough to make her the underdog. Perhaps the NRCC thought that either Bachmann’s comments truly damaged her (in which case she will fall anyway) or that they will be forgotten by November 4th (in which case she is likely to survive). Bachmann’s refusal to move on and her defiant posture over the past few days might have also made the NRCC think that the incumbent would not cooperate - and that there was thus little point in helping her.
—
Meanwhile, news from the front of presidential fundraising brings the somewhat surprising news that, as of October 15th, Obama and the DNC had less cash on hand than McCain and the RNC. (The committees and the campaigns had to file financial disclosure forms for the first half of October by midnight today.)
The Obama campaign spent a jaw-dropping $106 million over the first two weeks of October, and raised $37,7 million over the same period - meaning that it had $66 million left in the bank as of October 15th. (Full Obama statement here, for your browsing pleasure.) The DNC had $11 million left, bringing the Democrats’ total cash on hand to $77 million. Meanwhile, the McCain campaign had $25 million let, combined with $59 million for the RNC - bringing the total to $84 million.
This does not mean, however, that Democrats no longer enjoy a financially dominant position. First, it is possible that Obama had already bought ad time for the weeks after October 15th by that date, though the statement seems to be suggesting that this might not be a big factor: (1) The statement says that Obama has spent $80 million on media buys from October 1st to October 15th, however, which is not that far off from what Obama is known to be spending for two weeks of ads (we know he spent $32 million worth of ads airing in the first week of September). (2) Furthermore, Obama’s statement indicates that most of this money was spent by October 10th, suggesting that the buys were meant to cover the upcoming week - not the period until Election Day.
Second, a dollar held by the Obama campaign does not equate a dollar held by the RNC; as we have seen over and over again over the past few months, McCain has not been able to control his message effectively because of his need to pay for most of his ads with the RNC’s money or because the RNC’s independent expenditure division comes up with its own themes. Furthermore, while most of the RNC’s war chest will go to the presidential race, not all of it will.
Third, the Obama campaign is continuing to raise money as we speak while the McCain campaign is not - and any new money that will be injected into the GOP will go to the RNC, reducing any possibility of message unification even more.
Finally, and this is very important, the two parties were at near parity because of Obama’s astonishing spending spree, not because of a disappointing fundraising total by Obama ($37,7 in two weeks is a higher fundraising pace than Obama enjoyed in any month other than September.) His early October spending has a great deal to do with Obama surge to a dominant position. By swamping McCain in a large number of battleground states, Obama drastically transformed the electoral map over those two weeks: He put the blue states entirely out of play, confirmed Missouri and Indiana’s toss up status and edged slightly ahead in a number of red states.
Even if the GOP can avoid being financially demolished as badly as it has been over the next 11 days (and given that they have been crushed in the week since October 15th, that looks unlikely), the harm has already been done: Republicans now stuck playing on red turf - so red, in fact, that they can’t even keep up spending in purple Colorado.
I’m so GLAD that the current GOP is finally getting the scorn they deserve for trying to win EVERY election by doing nothing more than playing to the absolute worst in people.
Bachmann didn’t get the public reaction she was expecting when doing her typical GOP song and dance. “Dems are anti-American” boogeymen to feaR, feAR, fEAR,FEAR!….
If it’s not a play on peoples fears of alleged anti-Americanism then it’s a play to peoples other darkest instincts.
This is the GOP recipe for winning an election. Take two groups, tell one group that the other group is “out to get them” stir the shit, perpetuate division in society and hope that you get biggotry based votes…NOT FOR you, but AGAINST your Democratic opponent!
The problem with this is that it keeps society divided by perpetuating fear, discrimination and resentment. The GOP of the last 20 years has been shameless in it’s willingness to take certain groups of AMERICANS, paint them as a threatening, scary, boogeyman and serve them up with all the false fright they can muster.
To name just of few groups of our FELLOW AMERICAN CITIZENS that the GOP have unfairly and wrongly decided to paint as horrible, scary “threats” to all that’s good and true, just off the top of my head I’d have to say Feminists, Gays, Non-Christians, The Non-Religious, Muslims, Intellectuals/Educated People, Big City Folk, Environmentalists, Those Who Don’t Care To Own A Fire Arm etc.etc.
There’s nothing scary or threatening about the individuals who fit into any of these groups. You sure wouldn’t know that if you listened to your average right winger though. It’s despicable through and through!
How can the GOP claim to have a “superior love” for this country when ALL THEY DO is practice a divide and conquer strategy to get into power. Since when is perpetuating prejudice in ones country a sign of loving that country?
How are such tactics good for the state of our UNION? We are an extremely diverse nation and getting more so all the time. Because of this, our leaders should be encouraging us to get along and they should be steering us away from giving into our base instincts of suspicion and fear of all those who don’t look, act, think, pray, love, live just like us.
As a young white man, I’m SICK of all the division in this society. Where is it ultimately going to lead us? That’s why I’m voting a straight Democratic ticket. We need leadership that helps the union become a more perfect union. We need leadership that denounces suspicion and fear of ones fellow Americans, not leadership that encourages it as the GOP does! Enough is enough.
Just like Colin Powell said. “So what if he WERE a Muslim?” That’s right Colin. So what? There are LOTS of Americans who are Muslims, just like there are lots of Americans who are some other faith or of no faith at all. Does that make them incapable of loving their country or being good leaders?
Maybe when the GOP stops and apologizes for painting large, gigantic, enormous swathes of the American citizenry as something less than “REAL” Americans or worse yet, as some kind of threat to other Americans, maybe then and ONLY then will I ever even consider voting for a GOP candidate again.
The big fundraising drop for Obama in October is good news for McCain, because that means that for the remaining week and half he will not be as swamped by spending as it was for September and earlier this month. The bad news is like Taniel said: much of the damage is already done and McCain is mainly on defense with only a (somewhat longshot) offensive in Pennsylvania. After conceding Michigan, it is cleazr that McCain’s hopes rest on winning the three remaning big swing states (Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida). Too bad that McCain is the definite underdog in PA at the moment and are at best toss-ups in FL and OH. If McCain happens to sweep these three states, then his chances of winning the election overall go up dramitcally, but if Obama wins Virginia and Colorado, a single win in a small state or medium state like Nevada, Missouri, North Carolina or maybe even Indiana would still put him over the top. This also means that if on Election day, Obama wins Virginia and Pennslyavnia, McCain has probably lost. It is possible (but not a sure thing) that we may actually know who is elected president before midnight on November 4th. Of course, polls close on the west coast around 11:00 pm EST, and all 3 west coast states (California, Washington, and Oregan) seem to be in the tank for Obama, with only Nevada (most of the state being in the Pacfic time zone) likely being a tossup in that region, with Alaska and Hawaii (closing around 1 am and 2 am EST respectfully) being safe, Alaska for McCain, Hawaii (probably by 60%+) for Obama.
Bachmann is like a male Saddam Hussein in that she is stubborn, defiant, arrogant, hypocrite, and a hatemonger. I despise this woman. Just because she is a social conservative and should deserve the election demosntrates that the Family Research Council is a terrorist organization.
Just because she is a social conservative and should deserve the election demosntrates that the Family Research Council is a terrorist organization.
I have to weigh in on this one. I have no love for the Family Research Council. But “terrorist”? Are they using terror to advance their goals? People are free to be social conservatives. People are free to criticize each other. The line is drawn at physical violence. As much as I detest the FRC, I haven’t seen them cross that line.
One can disagree with others and state that opposition strongly without resorting to unproductive (and often counterproductive) name-calling.
dsimon,
I have to agree with you. This is a country where differences of opinion should be encouraged and the exercise of free speech protected. I was speaking hyperbolically. But to be honest, the FRC is merely interested not in just advancing its agenda of a conservative US, but stifling the free choices American should be allowed to make (abortion, etc). In short, the FRC stands in the wy of a free world.
That’s quite a rant, Marc, and I have to agree with you. It’s a measure of how bad the Republicans have screwed thing up that I feel compelled to put the Democrats firmly in charge. I remarked to my wife last night that I think the Republican party will fracture in two, with the “religious” right separating from the “fiscal discipline” right. I expressed the hope that the same would happen to the Democratic party, with the “anti-international trade, anti-military” far left getting out. Then the two pieces remaining of each party could join and represent the bulk of American in the middle. People like me:
pro-gun,
pro-death penalty,
pro-reproductive right,
pro-gay rights,
keep taxes as low as possible while still providing defense and infrastructure,
enough regulation to provide for orderly markets without being too burdensome for business,
pro-defense (large enough military to project American power, without having a bloated military-industrial complex),
pro-environment,
pro-farmers,
pro-cities,
etc.
I’m not an expert, but it seems like we’re seeing the very worst of our current 2-party system. Many people feel like neither party truly represents them, so they resort to voting on one or two issues–regardless of whether they really support that candidate or party. For instance, what’s an evangelical environmentalist to do? Or a gay woman who strongly believes in the right to life? I realize that there are many other factors in voter’s decisions, but the black-and-white two-party system has left little room for the shades of gray that an increasingly diverse America lives with.
I do realize that other parties exist–I’ve voted for their candidates, and later felt that perhaps I’d thrown my vote away. I wonder what would happen if other parties got at least some amount of public financing, air time, media play, etc… (Do they now?)
I don’t know if opening up the 2-party system would help unify the country, but it might open a public dialogue about not just our differences, but our shared interests, and maybe give a voice to the many Americans who don’t fall neatly within Democratic or Republican party lines.
It is better to get rid of the 2-party system and institute a system in which Independents, Democrats, Republicans, and Libertarians can compete freely. A system based on political party brand is deceiving, but it helps where he candidate stands on issues. Perpahs the 2-party system should stand be be reformed. Right now, the GOP is in such a mess.