Rob Simmons: NRSC Enamored with Self-funders (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 17, 2024, 02:16:45 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Congressional Elections (Moderators: Brittain33, GeorgiaModerate, Gass3268, Virginiá, Gracile)
  Rob Simmons: NRSC Enamored with Self-funders (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Rob Simmons: NRSC Enamored with Self-funders  (Read 2335 times)
Napoleon
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,892


« on: December 24, 2010, 01:24:08 AM »

As terrible a decision as it was to foist Simmons this year, I disagree with it comes to self-funding candidates. The more of those we have, the less money the NRSC has to spend holding them above water. They can focus on other races.

Just tell the self-funders to screw off. They can use their limitless cash flow to fund PACs, donate to the NRSC, and donate to campaigns. They can't win themselves. But then why would they spend their money, you ask? Well, the Republicans in the Senate have done quite enough for the super-rich already right? You rub my back, I rub yours.
Logged
Napoleon
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,892


« Reply #1 on: December 24, 2010, 01:47:31 AM »

Remember what they tried to do in Pennsylvania?
And now Toomey is a Senator. Would Snarlin' Arlen have been able to beat Sestak as a Republican? I'm not so sure on that one.
Logged
Napoleon
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,892


« Reply #2 on: December 25, 2010, 01:41:07 AM »

Pennsylvania is not comparable to California or Connecticut.

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. The NRSC is right sometimes (Delaware, Nevada) and wrong in others (California, Connecticut).
Logged
Napoleon
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,892


« Reply #3 on: December 25, 2010, 01:58:47 AM »

That's the whole reason behind the NRSC (or the DSCC) intervening in primary campaigns...

They are trying to ensure the best (read: most electable) candidate is the nominee. Just because McMahon has a lot of money doesn't mean she is more electable than Rob Simmons. Party leadership has an influence that can make voters choose a candidate that maybe they wouldn't if neutrality was the way of the day.
Logged
Napoleon
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,892


« Reply #4 on: December 25, 2010, 05:30:00 PM »

Simmons was the one who scared Dodd out in the first place and won three times in heavily Democratic district. McMahon never stood in a chance in Connecticut.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.022 seconds with 9 queries.