The most striking example is the Kentucky Republican primary, in which the NRSC has chosen to throw most of their support behind the lackluster Trey Grayson, sponsoring a fundraiser and raising money for his campaign while ignoring Rand Paul who has led him in the polls by 15 points for almost six months. Grayson is using this money to run a very negative campaign and trying to smear Paul, all of which will hurt the Republican nominee in the general election. Despite this, Paul is crushing Grayson and is also favored to win the general election. And all the money and effort of the NRSC will have been wasted when it could have been used in a general election campaign where it would help defeat a Democrat rather than funding a struggle between two Republicans.
Similarly, in Florida the NRSC has chosen to throw their weight behind Governor Charlie Crist's campaign while ignoring the campaign of popular challenger Marco Rubio. As in Kentucky they are backing the wrong horse and Rubio's insurgent campaign is gaining ground on Crist. Again the NRSC will have wasted substantial amounts of money in a primary pitting one Republican against another instead of saving it for the general election in efforts to defeat the Democrats.
The same pattern is being repeated in Nevada where the NRSC anointed Sue Lowden and has helped raise money for her, ignoring a more appealing candidate in Danny Tarkanian, who has a higher overall favorability rating with the public. Lowden is more of a party insider, but has little else to recommend her, while Tarkanian has fresh ideas and comes from a business background and appeals more to independents and liberty-minded voters from the Tea Party movement. It's the same story in Indiana where they have chosen to back the bland and mediocre Dan Coats while ignoring John Hostettler who has more grassroots support and is running roughly even with him as well as polling better against the likely Democratic nominee.
The decisions made in these three races are particularly bad because these are races for seats which are open or where there is a weak Democrat incumbent and where candidates really ought to have been competing on an equal footing. Instead, the NRSC essentially picked one candidate out of the field of hopefuls and attempted to use their influence to give them a kind of artificial incumbent status, making poor choices and wasting a great deal of money in the process. Not only did they spend money fruitlessly but they also caused the candidates they opposed to spend more money, all of which could have been used against the Democrats in the fall.
Article comments
1 - Dr Dreadful
I wonder if the NRSC tends to play it safe rather than back 'wild card' candidates because they're afraid of losing the Republican base - the conservative Christians and so forth.
They should realise that probably won't happen. Faced with a GOP candidate who doesn't stand for all of their deeply-held values, and a Democrat, they're gonna vote for the Republican.
2 - Dr Dreadful
Or is it simply a manifestation of the 'exclusive club' mentality which typifies conservatives the world over?
3 - Dave Nalle
Dr. D. The conservative Christians aren't the Republican base. The NRSC also avoids supporting candidates who come out of that background.
Dave
4 - Dr Dreadful
The conservative Christians aren't the Republican base.
But perhaps they're perceived as being so.
The NRSC also avoids supporting candidates who come out of that background.
Which doesn't explain several current and recent 'gracers' of the upper house.
5 - Dan(Miller)
Dave,
I generally hold the view that the RINOs are becoming, and should become, an extinct species. More of the old "new boss, same as the first" or "new day, same crap" stuff probably won't cut it this November. Of far greater importance, it will make it far more difficult to succeed in November of 2012. Unfortunately, that seems to be the direction in which the NRSC is continuing.
I set forth my opinions on the matter at some length here and won't burden the comments section with a condensed version.
Dan(Miller)
6 - handyguy
Christian conservatives certainly are part of the GOP base.
The new governor of Virginia and his despicable attorney general are both right wing extremists and religious fundamentalists.
And I suspect Rand Paul, like his dad, has a strongly religious component in his philosophy and his followers -- if he is indeed libertarian on issues like abortion, expect him to hide it lest it become an issue.
And Marco Rubio? Creationist theocrat -- though like Va. gov McDonnell he will soft pedal his extremism in the general election.
Dave likes to pretend that the tea party movement is libertarian about personal behavior, as he is. But there is a great deal of anti-gay, anti-abortion, and what I would call anti-ACLU animus in a lot of these candidates and their supporters. Not good news for anyone.
7 - handyguy
So, Dan, RINOs: Do they include Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe? There used to be a tradition of moderate Republicans, especially in the Northeast. [If Scott Brown expects to be reelected, he will have to join Collins and Snowe in a mini-revival of that movement.]
I think it's been very detrimental to the GOP and to the country as a whole that the inmates [hard line, take no prisoners conservatives] have taken over the asylum the last 20 years -- and apparently they are about to be joined by an even loonier, more extremist crowd.
I think this is scary/funny. Maybe you find it invigorating. Yikes.
8 - handyguy
Should have mentioned JD Hayworth's hideous anti-gay nonsense as well. And will his Abramoff connections come up as they did when he lost his seat in Congress?
9 - Dave Nalle
The "loonier" crowd which is coming out now is much less religious and intolerant than the religious right which has been in power for 20 years. In fact, there's quite a bit of conflict between the two groups within the party.
Dave