NRA Is Firing Blanks

There's no doubt it was a rough Election Day for the National Rifle Association. The gun group spent millions of dollars supporting John McCain for President and trying to tarnish the image of Barack Obama -- with little to show for it, given that Obama won Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and other swing states where the NRA was most active.

But if you look further down ballot, there's even more evidence that one of the nation's most storied lobby groups is becoming all muzzle and no bullet. The NRA not only failed to elect John McCain and Sarah Palin to the White House, but also failed to defend many of its leading advocates in Congress who were facing tough reelection challenges. In addition, the NRA threw its weight behind several challengers and open seat candidates whose efforts fell short of the mark.

In a post-election, head-to-head analysis between federal candidates endorsed by the NRA and those endorsed by the Humane Society Legislative Fund, the puppy power clearly outshot the gun powder. The NRA had endorsed 278 federal candidates, and has won 240 of the 274 races that have been decided so far, with a success rate of 87.6 percent.  HSLF had endorsed 313 federal candidates, so far winning 293 of 310 contests for a 94.5 percent win rate.

Both groups tend to endorse incumbents who have been allies on their issues in Congress, and the overall win rates are high because incumbents often don't face competitive races. In fact, as surprising as it may sound, 96 lawmakers were endorsed by both the NRA and HSLF. Many of them - -like Reps. John Campbell (R-Calif.), Elton Gallegly (R-Calif.), Dave Reichert (R-Wash.), and Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.) -- recognize you can be for the right to bear arms and also for protecting animals from cruelty and abuse, and are often the bridge-builders who find a balancing of interests between diverse groups. Of this group, 89 candidates won, six lost, and one race is still too close to call -- NRA and HSLF both backed Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minn.) who leads by 215 votes but is facing a recount -- for a win rate of 93.7 percent.

But the most important comparison, perhaps, lies in the 39 races where the NRA and HSLF went head-to-head and endorsed opposing candidates. Both groups generally throw their weight behind candidates who are viable, so these were all competitive contests, and some were decided by very narrow margins. Two of them are so close they have not been decided yet -- Mary Jo Kilroy against Steve Stivers in Ohio's 15th District, and Charlie Brown against Tom McClintock in California's 4th District. Of the 37 races that have been decided, HSLF won 28 and NRA won only nine -- meaning HSLF was the victor 75.7 percent of the time to the NRA's 24.3 percent. In three out of every four races, the HSLF candidate edged out the NRA candidate.

HSLF went five for five in the head-to-head Senate match-ups -- winning in what would typically be considered the strong NRA states of Colorado, Louisiana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, and Oregon. On the House side, voters ousted NRA loyalists such as Reps. Tom Feeney (R-Fla.), Joe Knollenberg (R-Mich.), Marilyn Musgrave (R-Colo.), Bill Sali (R-Idaho), and Tim Walberg (R-Mich.). The gun group fared just as poorly with its crop of challengers -- including Dean Andal (R-Calif.), Tim Bee (R-Ariz.), and Andy Harris (R-Md.) -- who misfired.

Some of the NRA's staunchest loyalists did hang on -- including Reps. Scott Garrett (R-N.J.), Sam Graves (R-Mo.), and Don Young (R-Alaska). But the NRA's influence seems on the wane. Their hardcore ideology on gun rights and defense of extremely inhumane and unsporting hunting practices appeals only to a small slice of the electorate and provides no road map to appeal to women, suburban voters, or minorities -- all massive and increasingly important constituencies. In fact, their positions and ideology are driving these constituencies precisely in the opposite direction. HSLF, on the other hand, speaks directly to all of these constituencies, largely because our message of kindness to pets and compassion and decency toward all animals has universal appeal.

And because the NRA reflexively opposes sensible HSLF policy reforms -- such as the trade in bear parts for the black market, banning captive trophy hunts, and halting the aerial gunning of wolves -- the NRA will further alienate core voting blocs and allow us to connect even more powerfully to these mainstream voters. In addition, the NRA's intransigence will force recorded votes in the House and Senate that we can use in future elections to brand lawmakers as unreasonable and out of step when they side with the NRA instead of with their animal-friendly constituents. The NRA puts its loyalists in a political box and the group's narrow-minded orthodoxy will continue to be its undoing.

Follow Michael Markarian on Twitter: www.twitter.com/mmarkarian

Comments

[tippetth]

It is such a relief to read that the NRA's influence might be on the wane. I have rarely come across an organization as unyielding, unreasonable and as out of touch with modern day America. Their stridency is off putting to many hunters and gun enthusiasts who struggle to try to defend the organization when challenged. I hope and pray their days are numbered...

[Willbill]

Few if anyone ran on an anti-hunting or gun ban platform. The fact is most the electorate was voting on economic concerns rather than these issues. Despite the fact that NRA was telling the truth on Obama’s record on firearms rights the national news media was successful in covering up Obama’s true record. When Obama promised gun owners that he would respect an individual’s Second Amendment rights the national news media just took him for his word and refused to check or talk about his record on the issue. This along with the Supreme Court’s decision in D.C. vs. Heller lulled gun owners into complacency and a false sense of security resulting in the Second Amendment not emerging as an issue in this election. That’s about to change. It certainly won’t be long before Obama breaks his promise to gun owners, and the Democrats will start proposing firearms bans, a national ban on right to carry, and bans on hunting. When this happens we will see the tide turn on them. Americans don’t want these bans, and the Democrats support of HSUS’s and The Brady Campaign radical agendas will be the Democratic Party’s undoing just as it was in 1994 election.

[jealousmonk]

It has more to do with the repudiation of Republicans by the electorate than anything else.

[GonzoFactor]

My father, confirmed gun nut, conservative, patriot, and ex-Marine, left the NRA in the late '60's because he felt that the NRA had no damned business trying to become a political force. He felt that interference in politics was wrong for groups like the NRA, churches, and unions. A late-converted but devout Christian, he felt that the government must stay secular because of the tendency of church members who disagreed to decide that they had become the recipients of the Only Message of God. He was a good man who felt that politics far too soon became a matter of self-interest rather than national interest.

I disagreed quite a bit with my father, but there are a few things that I kept from him. One is a resounding dislike of liars for political gain. The NRA has seriously joined my s&*% list for their lies about Obama, Kerry, and everyone else who is even vaguely liberal or moderate.

[ErnestBell]

The NRA played a very different role in American life before the 1970s. It went off the tracks in 1977 at the Cincinnati convention, where the 2nd Amendment absolutists took over and redirected the organization to the vicious, vituperative, and intractable path it's on. I'm sure it is a comfort to feel that voters didn't repudiate the NRA in this election, but all that one can say for sure is that the NRA was too weak to help the embattled candidates it supported to victory. They threw what they had at Obama and it wasn't enough. The great thing about American society is that it doesn't reward absolutists, not for very long anyhow. I'm confident that we'll reach a new equilibrium on the use of guns and on gun ownership. Some kinds of gun ownership, some kinds of gun usage, some kinds of killing of animals, are out of bounds and I'm convinced that it is constitutional to regulate or end them, with the consent of the people through their elected officials, and the oversight of the courts.