Senators should have shown them the money

The Washington Times ^ | December 31, 2006 | Masthead Editorial

[neverdem]

Entering the post-primary presidential campaign of 2004, political strategists, commentators and journalists believed that if any single state would represent the difference between victory and defeat in the general election, Ohio would be that state. As it happened, that universally accepted conventional wisdom proved to be absolutely correct. Thus, today, more than two years later, strategists from both parties are still scratching their heads over John Kerry's failure to legally transfer to Ohio, which he lost 51-49, a large chunk of the $12.4 million that remained in his pre-convention campaign account at the end of 2004.

    In the same vein as Mr. Kerry's misjudgment, dozens of Republican senators will be returning to Washington next week as members of the minority party. They know full well that their failure to help finance many Republican senators' campaigns was a major factor in the electoral debacle that has cost their party every single committee and subcommittee chairmanship. More than 50 days after Democrats defeated six Republican incumbents to capture a de facto 51-49 majority in the Senate, it makes no more sense now than it did before the election, when numerous Republican senators ignored calls to transfer a portion of their own bulging war chests to a handful of pivotal states.

    Just as everyone knew that Ohio would be the decisive battleground state for the 2004 presidential election, we all knew which states were going to make the difference in determining which party would control the Senate in the incoming 110th Congress. For months everybody knew that November's tight races would include: Missouri, where Sen. Jim Talent, who narrowly defeated an incumbent in a special election four years ago, had a real fight on his hands; Rhode Island, where the White House and the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) held their...

[neverdem]

There's a reason it's called the stupid party. I hope they can learn.

[CharlesWayneCT]

Maybe money well spent could have won Virginia. But the NRSCC ran ads in Virginia, and I think they actually LOST us votes, so who knows.

Hard to believe money would have saved Talent either. Maybe Burns could have won with some more money spent, although he spent a lot of money.

However, money thrown at all these races MONTHS earlier might have discouraged opponents and cut off funding to the democrat side.

[GoBucks2002]

My experience with campaigns, over the past 4 cycles, as an observer, volunteer, campaign manager, opposition researcher, spokesman, and actor in campaign commercials has shown me that the least effective campaign committees are the national committees and state committees. (NRCC, DCCC, DSCC, NRCC, and counterparts at the state level.)

I can't think of a race at any level in either party that they won, but I can think of many that they lost or nearly lost.

Obviously, every race features a winner and at least one loser. Certainly, any race that is remotely close is going to attract interest from one side or the other's party committees.

But they come in, take over, change the direction of the campaign, over-rely on negative campaigning, direct mail, and TV/radio, etc.

Then, if their side wins, they pat themselves on the back. If they lose, it's the candidate's (or, worse, the candidate's volunteers) fault.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Maybe these stupid GOP committees will stay the F out of the primary races. Let the local voters vote for the most conservative possible candidate, then you back him/her in the general.

Also giving money to Chafee was perhaps the dumbest utilization of funds in the history of political campaigns.

[rocksblues]

Also giving money to Chafee was perhaps the dumbest utilization of funds in the history of political campaigns.

I disagree, Specter was the biggest waste of time and money in 2004.