Rob Simmons: NRSC Enamored with Self-funders

[redcommander]

http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/archives/2010/12/rob-simmons-nrs-1.php

A very bad strategy if that continues to 2012.

[SvenssonRS]

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.

[Napoleon]

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.

[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.  

[Napoleon]

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.

[Keystone Phil]

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.

People were tired of Specter (but, I must admit, they were pushed over the edge with the party switch. He wasn't that unpopular before it). In this type of year and assuming Specter would have held onto Independents/moderates, he would have been hard to beat but plenty of us on the right would have been even more enraged and Sestak very well could have won. It's a moot point though since Specter was never surviving a primary. He would have been lucky to hit 40%.

[redcommander]

The strategy itself isn't very good. Many self-funders burn themselves out with advertisements before election day and then see their poll numbers remain stagnant or drop from over saturation (Whitman and McMahon come to mind).

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Self-funders often show up in seats where Republicans have no other serious options. Talk about a non-self-funder winning Connecticut and California is ridiculous, IMO.

[Sam Spade]

I guess that maybe another candidate might have ran better in California than Fiorina, but I wouldn't bet on it - Fiorina ran pretty much as generic R, and besides, didn't really self-fund much (note that who did self-fund performed worse...).  Still wouldn't have won.

As for Connecticut, we're basically talking the same issue. 

Just FYI, remember that in Illinois, Kirk got 1) an incredibly weak opponent; 2) an Illinois Dem party that doesn't mind him being in *that much*, especially if Giannoulias' legal problems are serious; 3) a year in 2010 where the swing in Illinois (and the upper Midwest in general) was quite stronger than the nation as a whole.

Pennsylvania is not comparable to California or Connecticut.

[Lunar]

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

[Sam Spade]

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

I think anyone who pays attention to politics knows it.  Of course, spending $8 million in CA is akin to throwing money down the drain regardless of who is the Republican (self-funder or not).

[Napoleon]

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).

[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

[Napoleon]

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.

[DrScholl]

Of course, they would like candidates that can fund their own campaigns, it leaves more money for other races. Electability is a factor, but the candidate's ability to raise funds is a factor as well.

[redcommander]

It's just such a shame Campbell and Simmons were thrown under the bus by the NRSC in favor of McMahon and Fiorina. Simmons might have even helped Foley to pull off a win if he had been the nominee considering how wasteful McMahon was with advertising. Heck he might have even helped Republicans pick up a house seat or two he had that distinguished and honorable of a political and military career. Campbell had the possibility of being a bright spot for Republicans too.

[tpfkaw]

Simmons would have lost with under 40% of the vote, probably pushing 30.  Nobody wants a lame washed-up defeated congressman with no fundraising power.  His campaign would not have generated any sort of excitement or energy.  He's a losing loser, and would have lost magnificently.  The fact that he performed significantly worse than McMahon in all pre-primary polling tells the entire story.  This is just sour grapes on his part.  That said, for the NRSC to actively involve themselves in the CA race and endorse Fiorina (then throw most of their disposable millions at her unwinnable race just to prove themselves "right" and to compensate for the fact that she was a self-funder who wouldn't self-fund), was unconscionable.

[Napoleon]

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.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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.

Simmons should have waited till the filling deadline.