Rob Simmons: NRSC Enamored with Self-funders

[Lunar]

Rob Simmons: NRSC Enamored with Self-funders

I feel like the sentence should be completed "... in states where they don't feel especially competitive."

But I think self-funders really tanked in 2010.  Scott scraped by (barely), but Lamont, Whitman, Fiorina, McMahon, etcetc...

I mean, Ohio had a self-funder for a bit in the form of Ganley or whatever that auto guy's name was, but the NRSC wisely passed him on by, along with a self-funder in New Hampshire.

[Lunar]

See, this is a load of crap:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We all know the NRSC wasn't neutral in Florida, or California, or any of these races, really.  The political establishment moves a lot of votes in low-turnout primary races, and if the national political establishment is quietly sending the message that they are enamored with a certain candidate, that moves votes.  If the NRSC quietly pushed the right candidates instead of the wrong ones in primaries, that would affect general election outcomes.  

[Lunar]

Didn't the NRSC spend a crapton of money in California? Like eight frickin' million dollars?  That's not an unknown fact, right?

[Lunar]

I'm referring to the NRSC's attempts to find someone other than Toomey in Pennsylvania. I know he wasn't a self-funder, but the NRSC tends to think it is smarter than voters.

Huh?  What does that mean?  They may think they're "smarter" than primary voters in terms of choosing more electable candidates*, but I'm sure the NRSC knows that it's just a guess at who's got the best probability in the general election, not a fact.

*primary voters don't generally try and smartly choose the most electable candidate