Will GOP Chair Michael Steele's well-documented antics cost the GOP a wave in November? Or, rather, have Steele's foibles already cost the GOP what's likely to be its best opportunity to retake the House and Senate during the Obama presidency?
Enthusiasm alone doesn't win elections; detesting Democratic policies more vehemently -- forget Obama's being a socialist, he's a commie! -- won't make John Boehner speaker. Facilitating a nationwide electoral wave requires infrastructure.
Infrastructure that Michael Steele may already be costing Republicans.
In numbers reported for the month of May at the end of June, according the a Washington Times report, the Republican National Committee (RNC) had $12.6 million cash on hand to allocate for individual races. For a point of reference, each May between 2002 and 2009 the RNC had an average of $35,434,123.45 cash on hand. Both the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) and the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) have out-raised the RNC, a situation without precedent during the past 12 years.
This state of affairs is fairly easy to understand, and even easier for sympathetic voices to spin. In June, a group of former high-level RNC donors signed a letter urging top contributors to steer their money toward the NRSC in lieu of Steele's RNC. And the NRSC and NRCC have been holding their own with their Democratic counterparts, with $18.2 million and $12 million cash on hand respectively.
Besides, the RNC's fundraising numbers look great, compared to what they pulled in during the historic 1994 campaign! (Unless one factors in inflation, and the increased cost of running a multi-media campaign in 1994 vs. 2010. But why dampen their spirits?)
A review of the 2006 midterms -- four years in the past, not fourteen -- underscores the hole the RNC is busy digging for aspiring Republican candidates. Despite the thumpin' the Dems handed the GOP in 2006, those elections could have turned out significantly worse for Republicans -- if it weren't for the efforts of the RNC.
Republicans actually outspent the Democrats by more than $11 million in 2006, most of that difference being made up by the RNC. The RNC devoted a whopping $17.4 million to the campaigns of individual congressional candidates which, as a report by the Campaign Finance Institute explains, "made up for the aggregate spending advantage achieved by the Democratic Hill Committees over the Republican Hill Committees" and "helped to overcome the large gap between the DSCC and NRSC." Out of the 80 cases in 2006 in which party spending made up over a quarter of a candidate's total expenditure 41 were Republicans. Out of the 17 cases in which the party spent more than its congressional candidate, 12 were Republicans.
It is also worth noting that all the information we have now for the 2010 midterm elections is woefully incomplete. Unsurprisingly, the bulk of party expenditures in individual races are made in the final months -- and usually weeks -- of the campaign season. The bulk of the money that will be spent on upcoming elections has yet to even be donated -- making the RNC's pre-July crackup even more harmful to the GOP's prospects.
Election day 2010 will reveal whether or not Republicans' new way of doing business -- with donors focusing on the NRSC and NRCC, as well as newly-formed 527 groups run by past heavyweights such as Karl Rove and Ed Gillespie -- can provide the sort of coordinated financial support needed to transform a cycle of local elections into a national movement. But it would seem impossible to argue that the task wouldn't be far simpler were the RNC equipped to play the expected role that is, in essence, its only justification for existence.
It's all about the mid-term elections
As Midterms Near, Obama Hits The Campaign Trail
Huffington Post Takes an Opinion Poll Service
A Modest Proposal: the Pelosi-Boehner Speaker Debates
Mid-term elections in prevailing situation could harm democratic culture: Shujaat
Wall Street Bails on Democrats: Midterm Candidates Claim It's a Plus
Fragile economic recovery at risk due to midterm election politics
Good piece. But the Republicants are so dense, they wouldn't know the difference either way.
The Kapt'n
Conservatives aren't going to win back either the House or the Senate. I know that goes against the grain of the hokum currently pushed on cable news...but that's just a reality.
And we live in reality. A world governed by physical laws supported by verifiable evidence....not the chimeric dreams of repressed conservatives.
We're on to them. Steele blew it. They know it.
Your wishful thinking doesn't make truth.
www.gallup.com
www.rasmussen.com
www. cbsnews.com
www.quinnipac.com
www.realclearpolitics.com
www.masondixon.com
Obama has dropped two points since last week. [ from 48 to 46% ] His ''disapproval'' has now exceeded his ''approval''.
None so blind, eh?
Republicans'll blame it on him - for whatever reason they can think of - because it'll make it easier to replace him that way.
The tparties - and their zany candidates - are also helping. As is the poor strategy that McConnell and Boehner have been employing these last couple of years - the "No!" is better than anything strategy.
Now that there are fewer than four months until the election, it will become increasingly difficult for the GOP to step forward with a winning strategy.
With people like Angle, Hayworth, Rubio, Lee and Paul running for Senate, there is enough blame to extend to the GOP and the voters.
Anyone thinking the GOP will install someone other than Steele before November is incorrect.
Here to show how they are actually losing.
www.realclearpolitics.com [ Political Races Map]
www.cookpolitical.com [ Charlie Cook, who called the 06 for the Dems and 08 for Obama].
It simply remains a question of how many seats will be lost.
However, it needs to win a great majority of races to do take over either national chamber. When I say Democrats are already winning I point to FL's 19th where Deutch beat Lynch; and that the GOP presents candidates like Paul, Rubio and Angle.
Cook and RCP are often incorrect. Accept them as predictors if you like, but they mean little in and of themselves.