GOP Abandons Santorum, Chafee & Burns (Open Thread)

[snapcat]

If true, this would be a shocking report from MyDD (a progressive blog) ...

Over at The Hotline's Saturday brunch there is an interesting item on the Senate strategy of the Republican National Committee: throwing near everything at Ohio, Missouri and Tennessee in a last-ditch attempt to hold on to the Senate.

The Republican National Committee's independent expenditure campaign kicks off with two ads in Ohio targeting Sherrod Brown (D) and an ad in TN targeting Harold Ford. Party strategists expect much of the IE's resources to be sent to the so-called firewall states of OH, TN and MO. (emphasis original)​

​

If I am reading this story correctly, and I believe I am, the RNC is all but giving up on Conrad Burns, Rick Santorum and Lincoln Chafee -- or at least hedging their bets by reserving the bulk of their independent expenditure reservoir for races they deem more winnable. The basis of this strategy is the theory, which is probably true, that it will be near impossible for the Democrats to win back control of the Senate unless they win at least two of the three seats from Ohio, Missouri and Tennessee.

The problem for the GOP, however, is that it is not assured that this gambit will pay off. Indeed, by telegraphing the decision to withhold key resources from Senate campaigns in Rhode Island, Pennsylvania and Montana, the RNC drastically undercuts the GOP Senators seeking reelection in those states (a show of no-confidence doesn't usually inspire volunteers and donors to redouble their efforts), and consequently cedes a fair deal of momentum nationally in the race for control over the Senate. What's more, as we on this side of the aisle saw in 2004, placing too many of one's eggs in a single basket by narrowing down the scope of battle can backfire as states that could have been competitive with a little bit of money are just given to the other side.

Clearly, this is a move of weakness from the GOP. The leaking of this strategy represents a new low point for the Republicans, providing yet more proof of their desperation and their sincere belief that they are on the verge of losing not one, but both chambers of Congress.

I'm not all that familiar with the Missouri race, but have some peripheral knowledge of the contests in TN & Ohio. I think it is possible for the Dems to win those states. TN won't be easy. I'm rather suprised to see so much support being given to Ohio, given the abysmal performance of DeWine.

So, let's take a look at some local papers for some guidence ...

An old Poll at the Cincinnati Enquirer finds the Dem Brown leading the Republican DeWine ...

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) released a new poll today – one day after Democratic Senate candidate Paul Hackett of Indian Hill bowed out of the race – showing Democratic Rep. Sherrod Brown of northern Ohio leading Sen. Mike DeWine, R-Cedarville, in the Senate race 44 percent to 41 percent.

"Mike DeWine is vulnerable and Sherrod Brown can beat him," DSCC spokesman Phil Singer said.

The poll was conducted by Hart Research from Feb. 2-7 and included a survey of 502 Ohio general election voters. The DSCC did not immediately respond to an e-mail asking what the margin of error was for the poll.

Here's the question folks were asked:

QUESTION: Suppose the candidates for this November's general election for United States senator were Sherrod Brown, the Democrat, and Mike DeWine, the Republican. If the election were held today, for whom would you vote – Sherrod Brown or Mike DeWine? (IF "NOT SURE," ASK Well, as of right now, do you lean more toward Brown or more toward DeWine?

Sherrod Brown…...………41
Sherrod Brown (lean)……3
Mike DeWine………..…....38
Mike DeWine (lean)……....3
Neither/other (VOL)…..…7
Not sure………………...........8

The Memphis Commercial Appeal has the following

This month, the same firm released polling data that showed Ford and Corker in a near dead heat among likely voters. Some 44 percent of voters said they'd vote for Ford, 45 percent said they'd vote for Corker.

Whereas the Nashville Tennessean has Corker out front big ...

Corker has a 49 percent to 36 percent advantage over Ford, with 15 percent of respondents undecided, according to the poll.

DailyKos has some interesting numbers ...

Missouri
Talent (R) 50
McCaskill (D) 44

Ohio
DeWine (R) 40
Brown (D) 46

And according to DailyKos, Montana is not yet a "gimme" for the Dems ...

Montana
Burns (R) 45
Tester (D) 48

Meanwhile, a Liberal TN Blog claims that Rasmussen has Ford behind Corker by 1 point ...

You heard right. Rasmussen Reports has released a new poll that puts Democrat Harold Ford Jr. only one point behind Republican Bob Corker.

As a result of these findings, Rasmussen has moved this race from "Leans GOP" to "Toss-up."

So, do you think the GOP is wise in abandoning Chaffee (RI) and Burns (MT)? I don't think so. I can see pulling campaign money from the PA race - Casey has a safe lead over Santorum.

I rather suspect that the GOP is now under the belief that they may actually lose the US Senate, too.

And I rather agree.

Do any of you also hear a distinctive song on the horizon?

​

 

[1billionserved]

Being a Pennsylvanian, I am delighted to hear that the GOP is dumping their financial support for Santorum. His bigotted ideaologies, and narrow definitions of what constitutes a family, have enraged voters across the country, not only in Pennsylvania. His undying support for George Bush will not be forgotten in the November elections. I just hope Pennsylvanians will not get complacent with Bob Casey's comfortable lead, and not bother going to the polls in November...EVERYONE who supports Bob Casey needs to get to the polls and vote, and also speak up to their friends and neighbors supporting Casey until then.

 

[Homoaffectional]

GOP Abandons Santorum (Really? Well, looks like the Greens have picked up the slack.)

Being a Pennsylvanian, I am delighted to hear that the GOP is dumping their financial support for Santorum. His bigotted ideaologies, and narrow definitions of what constitutes a family, have enraged voters across the country, not only in Pennsylvania. His undying support for George Bush will not be forgotten in the November elections. I just hope Pennsylvanians will not get complacent with Bob Casey's comfortable lead, and not bother going to the polls in November...EVERYONE who supports Bob Casey needs to get to the polls and vote, and also speak up to their friends and neighbors supporting Casey until then.

Let's not forget the far left nutjobs , who, having lost the primary for their candidate Chuck Pennachio -- or is that Alan Sandals? the fact that they had two progressive candidates splitting the vote even amongst themselves show how whacked they are -- are still occassionally complaining about Casey, which results in depressed turnout, where some won't bother voting at all, seeing 'no difference' between Casey and Santorum on social isseus or they'll be voting for the Green spoiler asshole Romanelli. What delusional pricks...


I'm sure they'll regret their stupidity were we to have to (God forbid) endure another 6 years of Santorum.

Even I have a 'Bob Casey... well, he's not Santorum' bumper sticker on my car, denoting that sure, I'd prefer a more progressive candidate, but my highest priority is to pick a candidate that can actually oust Santorum!

 

[Homoaffectional]

it's the perfect counterpoint to the conservatives' claim

Well, counterpoints shouldn't be necessary. Everyone w/a brain should know that every time any GOPher opens his or her mouth, it's lying. Every time a GOPher accuses the other side of something, either it's complete bullshit or they're just as (if not far more; typical projection) guilty of it themselves. Unfortunately about 30% of those that polling companies survey don't have that little commodity that the rest of us possess -- the aforementioned brain.

 

[Homoaffectional]

Hmmm... I was just wondering... I noticed that your 'status' as a poster is 'Known Democrat'. Is this something everyone gets automatically after a certain number of posts on the JUB M/B (if so, I would guess after 5K), or is it something the mods were able to work out specifically for you? If the latter, I'd like 'Known Progressive Independent' for myself.

 

[Homoaffectional]

Secret number of postings

After you reach a certain milestone in posts you can customize it to whatever you want, but there's a character limit I'm sure.

IC! Judging from your total number of posts, I would revise my earlier estimate from 5K down to 2K...

 

[tx_doc]

Santorum, Chafee & Burns..... isn't there a shot to cure that? Sounds like an itchy situation. I would abandon them too even if I didn't know about them.

 

[Homoaffectional]

Santorum, Chafee & Burns..... isn't there a shot to cure that? Sounds like an itchy situation. I would abandon them too even if I didn't know about them.

Just make sure you don't Spread any Santorum between the time you catch it and you get a shot that works for it...

 

[tx_doc]

Just make sure you don't Spread any Santorum between the time you catch it and you get a shot that works for it...

bless Dan Savage for turning his name into something so visual!

 

[snapcat]

the way, the average of Rasmussen, Keystone and Quinnipiac in Pennsyvania is Casey by 6.3%. (realclearpolitics.com) Looks like a slam dunk to me.

Care to share your cites with links?

Or are you going to preface your assertion with "take me at my word."

 

[Homoaffectional]

Care to share your cites with links?

Or are you going to preface your assertion with "take me at my word."

Right, and also... your point? What exactly does the average of 3 random polls, at least 2 out of 3 of which, tend to lean GOP, supposed to mean, in the long run? There has not been one poll where Santorum leads. And, as they say, the only poll that matters is the one on election day.

Luckily, PA is one of those states Bush wasn't able to rig for a victory for him in '04, so it's unlikely that Santorum will be able to rig it either, although I'm warning all Pennsylvanians to remain vigilant...

 

[Homoaffectional]

Funny how you quoted my citation. I can see how that would confuse you, lol.

Also, I understand that for whatever deluded, fear-induced reasons some gay men supported Bush in 2004 (and sadly, some even still do), but supporting Santorum? That's just heinously down to a level of real self-hate. The fact that you are looking for polls to suggest Santorum might win a US Senate Seat he never deserved to win in the first place leads many to the conclusion that you *want* Santorum to win, so you might want to distance yourself from that by publicly disavowing him if you're going to cite strange internal polls from the Santorum campaign...

Traynham is the post boy for this kind of self-loathing patheticness. He's Santorum's black, openly gay campaign manager, or communication director, or some shit like that.

 

[smelter]

By the way, the average of Rasmussen, Keystone and Quinnipiac in Pennsyvania is Casey by 6.3%. (realclearpolitics.com) Looks like a slam dunk to me.

To which Snapcat replied:

Care to share your cites with links?

Or are you going to preface your assertion with "take me at my word."

and you responded:

Funny how you quoted my citation. I can see how that would confuse you, lol.

It certainly confuses me also. I took the time to go to realclearpolitics.com to check your numbers. It seems you decided to cherry-pick 3 polls out of the 5 contained in the realclearpoltics.com (RCP) Senate Race Average. That's why Snapcat insists on links ..... it tends to diffuse partisan points of view. Here is RCPs summary on the Santorum vs Casey race:

RCP Ranking: Leans Democrat
(September 6) The Gallup poll indicating an 18 point lead for Casey should be taken with a grain salt. As good as Gallup is with national survey’s their state polling in 2004 was considerably less than stellar, as Gallup’s final polls in the critical toss up states of PA, FL and OH were significantly off the mark. They were calling for a Bush win in Pennsylvania by four, he lost by 2 ½ points (Kerry 50.9% - Bush 48.4%) and Kerry wins in Florida in Ohio by 3 and 4, which he lost by five and two. (FL: Bush 52.1% - Kerry 47.1%, OH: Bush 50.8% - Kerry 48.7%) ​

However, even if Gallup is off by 10 points, that still puts Casey ahead by 8, which isn’t good news for Santorum, reinforcing our point from the beginning that Santorum is simply down by too much. A move back into the low double digits in the next batch of polls would be very bad news for the incumbent’s reelection prospects. ​

 

[smelter]

Well, I didn't exactly cherry pick three polls. I threw out the Gallup poll because, as you quoted RCP, it should be taken with a grain of salt. I figured if I was going to throw that one out I'd throw another one out, and since they were all about the same spread (strange, huh) I threw out the oldest one. Plus, I specifically cited the three polls I was using. I wasn't hiding it. They are reputable national polling companies, not internal Republican pollsters, lol.

There is no doubt that Pennsylvania leans toward Casey. I was just trying to point out that it's not a slam dunk. If you all think it is, then by all means encourage your fellow Democrats in Pennsylvania to stop campaigning and take the rest of the fall off.

Now that you've explained the reasoning behind your percentage calculation, there is no longer a problem.

Had you done this in the first place, your percentage calculation wouldn't have been called into question. By just citing realclearpolitics.com as your source and not linking to the specifics contained within it, the impression you left is that your poll percentage was the same as calculated by the reaclearpolitics website.

 

[jkirk3000]

Hate to burst the bubble but - today's Boston Globe reports that not only did Chaffee win his primary, but the RNC heavily spent to help him win...something in the order of over $1,000,000.

The Dem's didn't abandon Lieberman until he lost the primary, and at least with Chaffee, the Rep's didn't abandon their incumbent (at least in RI).

 

[smelter]

Hate to burst the bubble but - today's Boston Globe reports that not only did Chaffee win his primary, but the RNC heavily spent to help him win...something in the order of over $1,000,000.

Which only proves the long-held opinion of mine that Republican voters have more money than brains.

 

[Homoaffectional]

I never said I supported Santorum. Also, I'm not gay, don't hate myself, etc., etc. I was just presenting a different point of view. One that contained facts and rational thought. Also, I think about politics with more than just my sexuality in mind. Sen. Santorum isn't necessarily my favorite Republican, but I will be pulling for him to win. Let the hate mail begin

Um... you're not gay?

Can someone say 'Republican operative troll'?

Sorry but either you're schizo or you didn't notice your contradicting statements.

You 'never said you supported Santorum', but you will be 'pulling for him to win' (despite him not being 'necessarily' your 'favorite Republican'). In other words, you support him.

Perhaps you will try to say you weren't denying that you support Santorum, just saying you hadn't admitted it before now.

BTW, no need for hate mail. You've basically discredited yourself. No one will take anything you say seriously from here on in.

 

[Homoaffectional]

Homo, he isn't supporting Santorum in hoping Santorum wins; he is supporting the Republican Party hegemony regardless of the candidate's past, stance, record, or conviction---Santorum is a Republican, thus the blind support.

Thus my 'Republican operative troll' remark.

I love how these guys are trying to infiltrate progressives blogs/sites now that they realize that they are having an influence.

Well, I suppose that opens the door for two to play that game. I was just wondering if the moderators of JUB would consider banning the guy if we can report instances where sites like FreeRepublic.com and others are banning people that they realize aren't aligning w/their political ideology. If someone like General Alfie gets banned for even a week, I'd say considering doing the same w/Jeff Gannon-type GOP operatives is also fair game...

 

[jkirk3000]

I just don't think the party should use its muscle and money to favor the incumbent during the primary -- I said that prior to the Connecticut primary and I stand by that today. The job of the party is to elect, not select, its nominee.

The party should not be in the bidness of simply perpetuating the incumbent by detering new faces and ideas. As it is, it's nearly impossible to evict these malingering incumbents.

I feel so strongly about this that yesterday in the NYS primary, I voted against the incumbent, Senator Clinton. Clinton and the party acted badly, with Clinton even refusing to debate Tasini, her opponent. And if she refuses to debate the Pug nominee, Kooky Spenser, I'll vote against her in the general election, too.



See above. Further, the Dems never "abandoned" Lieberman, he lost the primary -- he was rejected by the Dem voters, nothing complicated about that. Why some people struggle with the fact that the party supports the duly nominated (i.e. the guy with the most votes in the Dem primary) candidate and NOT the guy who loses and cries like a sore loserman. There is ONE Democrat running for the US Senate in Connecticut -- his name is Ned Lamont.

It is a fact of life that probably in all political systems, those in power will use whatever means necessary to stay in power. Originally our congress was set up as a volunteer group of elected officials. It has evolved into a vocation, and in most cases a job for life.

I'm not sure if I agree with your decision to vote against Hilary though. If she represents what you believe in, does it really make sense to vote for someone else just because she won't debate an opponent? Is there some stand of hers that you are not aware of? She seems pretty clear to me on just about every issue.

Do you advocate term limits? Reallity check here - that is probably the only way to eliminate politics being a lifetime profession...yet, it takes away choice. Honestly, I'm not sure about term limits, and as a Republican from Mass stuck with Teddy and Kerry for life, I should be for term limits. But I just don't like the government taking away my choices, even if my vote means nothing.

As I've said before, I consider all politicians to be duplicious pond scum...but some scum are better than others!

 

[Homoaffectional]

Blanket term limits are a double-edged sword. You will regret imposing them.

Do you advocate term limits? Reallity check here - that is probably the only way to eliminate politics being a lifetime profession...yet, it takes away choice. Honestly, I'm not sure about term limits, and as a Republican from Mass stuck with Teddy and Kerry for life, I should be for term limits. But I just don't like the government taking away my choices, even if my vote means nothing.

This is what needs to happen with term limits. Instead of just mandating definite term limits, procedures need to be installed in the law so that those disappointed with a certain leader can put a referendum on the ballot a certain period of time before their first/second/third/insert-however-many-terms-they've-had-here term is up. This can work w/local, state, and federal candidates. In the case of president, it should be the year before reelection (in Bush's case it would have to have been gotten ready so that a question would have been put on the ballot in November of 2003) and it should be something like 100,000 signature need to be collected in each of 15 states or so to put it on the ballot in every state. It's only fair if a certain amount of states can ratify constitutional amendments that every state has to abide by, even those that didn't ratify it.

This has the advantage of being able to block an excessively horrendous politician from running again without forcing someone from one of the two 'major' parties to vote for the other 'major' party's candidate just to get rid of their man, just because they can't stand any more of said 'man's' blundering. That way Republicans that were appalled by Bush's actions when the war started could have voted to block him from running again w/out having to vote for someone like Kerry to knock him out. Combined w/Democrats and independents, there would have been enough votes through the term limits referendum so that we would have had a different president by now, even if it was John McCain. I'd rather have him than Bush, fer sure...

And until the major civic organizations amend their plans to try something like this instead of forcing every politician in the country, even if at just one of three (federal, state, local) levels and not all, we will *never* have universal term limits in this country. *NEVER*! Politicians will unite to block it, and it will be dead in the water. Organizations like US Term Limits need to learn this, or they will look ineffective organizations that won't ever get anything done ever.