NRSC defends Dole, 2006 candidate recruitment

The NRSC is on the defensive.

As Kos noted recently, Senator Elizabeth Dole has done a terrible job of recruiting candidates for 2006 Senate races (click link to see Kos' recent outlook)

The NRSC apparently realizes they've been getting some bad press, so they're trying to fight back. Today they sent out this lame defense of their 2006 recruiting efforts. I managed to get a hold of the release, and passed it along to other members of our organization.

It's kind of funny, but I think it's worth knowing what their talking points are. Let's get started:

To: Interested Parties
From: Mark Stephens, Executive Director, NRSC
Re: Candidate Recruitment

As you may have seen, there has been an article or two regarding recruiting in the past week.  Frankly, some of these stories are shortsighted, incomplete and ignore political common sense.  I hope you'll take an opportunity to look at a more objective view and I would welcome your thoughts and comments.

continued after the flip...

continued:

The Facts:

Most would agree that there are three classes of election races to recruit - Incumbents, Open Seats and Challengers to the other party's incumbent seats.  I think most knowledgeable people would also agree that recruitment should be prioritized in that same order.

If you examine recruiting in that context - the proper context to have the best opportunities to win races next November - then the recruiting job by Elizabeth Dole and the GOP is remarkably good.  

Oh really? Funny how we're always supposed to look at reality through their narrow, distorted lens. Even they say we have to examine recruiting in "that context" before making the absurd conclusion that "the recruiting job by Elizabeth Dole and the GOP is remarkably good."

It's easier to recruit good candidates for open seats than it is to recruit good candidates to challenge incumbents.

Dole has done an awful job of recruiting challengers to go up against Democratic incumbents:

Capito's decision [not to run against Robert Byrd] comes on the heels of North Dakota Gov. John Hoeven's decision to pass on a race against Dem Kent Conrad.  Vermont's Republican Governor Jim Douglas refused to take on Bernie Sanders. And so on. In fact, the NRSC's only high-profile challenger is one they wish would go away -- Florida's Katherine Harris.

If you don't field a strong slate of challengers, you are handing the other side's incumbents easy reelection campaigns. Those incumbents can then lend resources, money, and strategic support to challengers and candidates running for open seats.

We're beating the crap out of Dole. Don't believe this NRSC nonsense. Of course they're going to defend their lame performance. I wonder if they actually believe what they say.

On we go:

Incumbents:

How many of the 9 freshmen Senators (2 Democrat, 7 Republican) from 2004 beat an incumbent?  1...Thune over Daschle.  The other 8 ran in open seats.  There are two things to learn from this.  First, incumbents rarely lose and secondly, the best opportunity for a pick-up is in an open seat.  Regarding incumbents, what is the tally of Senators running for re-election?  So far 14 of 15 Republicans (93%) and 14 of 18 Democrats and Independents (78%) - if the New Jersey seat becomes open.  In the most important category that defines most election opportunities, Elizabeth Dole and the GOP have done a superb job.

Open Seats:

The second priority is securing first rate candidates for Democrat and Republican open seats.  How many open seats do Republicans have at risk this cycle?  Currently the number is 1, Tennessee - a red state with three solid Republicans - a mayor of a major Tennessee city and two former Congressmen - as candidates to replace Majority Leader Bill Frist.  Any of the three will be favored to retain that seat.  We'll know in a month (New Jersey Governor's race) if the Democrats have 4 open seats.  They are Maryland, Vermont, Minnesota and New Jersey.  In each of these open seats, Republicans have recruited Tier One candidates.  Lt. Governor Michael Steele in Maryland, successful businessman Rich Tarrant and Lt. Governor Brian Dubie in Vermont, Congressman Mark Kennedy in Minnesota and Tom Kean, Jr., a legislator and son of the popular former Governor of New Jersey.  These are all impressive recruiting victories by Elizabeth Dole and the GOP in the second most important group of campaigns.

Challengers:

Democrats claim to have recruited three quality candidates against Republican incumbents in Pennsylvania, Missouri and Arizona.  This is not the forum to dispute the Democrat's claims, but let it suffice to say that our candidates - Mike McGavick (Safeco CEO) in Washington who just reported raising over $700,000 in just 9 weeks and successful businessman Peter Ricketts in Nebraska (Former COO of Ameritrade) who raised nearly $375,000 in just 7 weeks are just as good.  Again, Elizabeth Dole and the GOP have recruited well.

Conclusion:

Heading into the 2006 election, Republicans will be defending 15 seats, fourteen with incumbents, while the Democrats are defending 18 seats, four of which may be open seats.  The Republican open seat candidate in Tennessee will be favored in the general election. In all four Democrat open seats, the NRSC has successfully recruited Tier 1 candidates.

Recent articles have ignored major Democrat recruiting misses in Virginia, Rhode Island and Maine.  Most articles have also omitted mention of potentially nasty and destructive Democrat primaries in Maryland, Minnesota, Montana and Ohio.

Ranking recruits is a cyclical pastime for Washington.  That is not to downplay the importance of recruiting, but there is a bottom line:  Can the recruited candidate muster or contribute the financial resources, build the needed grass roots organization and take a compelling message to the voters?  Those elements are the fundamental building blocks that create competitive campaigns capable of winning.  In each of the states I've mentioned above, our Republican candidates have the ability to do just that.  By what other means should you measure a candidate? Elizabeth Dole and the GOP have kept their eye on the ball and done a great job recruiting candidates for next year's races.

Yes, and Mike Brown did a superb job managing the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

Funny how each paragraph ends with a sentence or two of flat out praise for "Dole and the GOP". When it comes to publicly admiring yourself, no one is better at it than the Beltway Republicans.

I'll take issue personally with one of the races. I live in Washington State. I can tell you that Mike McGavick, despite his money, isn't going to be a great candidate. For one, he has little name recognition. Second, he's a former insurance industry executive - and what kind of voter has any great fondness for their insurance company? Third, there's plenty of fodder to hit McGavick with. He hasn't been to Congress yet, but believe me - he's got a record.

I could go on and on here, but please feel free to join in debunking this in the comment threads.

•  Have a Senate Race in your state?

  Tell me what you think of the outlook for your state.

  Pacific NW Portal - Regional Politics At Your Fingertips

  by MountOlympus on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 04:18:31 PM PDT

  •  the view from Michigan

    Mike Rogers and Candice Miller both could have made life incredibly tough for Debbie Stabenow. Either one would have had a real shot at beating her. Dole failed to get either one in the race.

    Now the Republicans are stuck with a crazy pastor who is getting outraised by a very large amount, and who is widely regarded as crazy.

    She's up 25ish in the polls despite a not-overwhelming approve/disapprove number.

    So yeah, I'd say she failed here.

    by AnnArborBlue on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 04:29:50 PM PDT

    •  Agreed

      Debbie is a lot tougher candidate than a lot of folks give her credit for, but still, Michigan is one of the most competetive states in the country, so she would have a tough race if she had a real opponent.  But she doesn't, and she won't.  

      Chalk up one easy victory where it shouldn't be easy.

      by DHinMI on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 04:39:14 PM PDT

  •  view from Hawaii

    Akaka will crush a token GOPer with +70%.  Far more interesting is who our next Senators will be (both Akaka and Inouye are 83 years old).

    by Skaje on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 05:07:06 PM PDT

  •  MD

    Rethugs are chortling to themselves over the race issue in our Senate races (Dems expect a fight between Cardin and Mfume in the primary to face Steele in the general).  I think they underestimate Steele's statewide popularity, particularly in the DC suburbs.

    Ehrlich slimed into office on the weakness of KKT's political skills.  He won't be facing a political lightweight this time.  Neither will Steele.  Their simultaneous campaigns for Gov and Senate are likely planning on synergistic campaigning.  But I think there are a number of wedges that will divide the campaigns, not the least of which is Steele's public image as a yesman.

    by Nina Katarina on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 05:08:34 PM PDT

    •  urk

      I meant 'overestimate' Steele's popularity.  Stupid no-edit-button...

      by Nina Katarina on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 05:10:01 PM PDT

•  Let me get this straight,

  they're giving Liddy credit for good recruiting of incumbents? I wonder, how did that conversation go:
  "Say, Trent, how you doin'?"
  "Good, Liddy."
  "So, you enjoy being a senator?"
  "Sure."
  "Um..want to keep doin' it?"
  "Sure."
  "WOO-HOO!!! Score one for the Lidster!"

  by PBJ Diddy on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 04:29:00 PM PDT

  •  Snort

    Sadly, their "argument" isn't quite that silly. The theory goes that incumbent have an advantage, so the side with more incumbents running has an inherent edge.

    Of course, that theory requires ignoring the very real weaknesses of many of their incumbents, such as Rick "Man on dog, foot in mouth" Santorum.

    Besides, there are rumors that Lott might retire.

    -dms

    by dmsilev on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 05:08:50 PM PDT

•  kind of funny

  'destructive primaries'

  yet they had many of these last year and their candidates still won. selective memory?

  by yomoma2424 on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 04:29:12 PM PDT

•  If the republicans fail miserably in 2006,

  Don't blame me, I voted for Bowles.

  by Kalil on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 04:29:23 PM PDT

•  It's not Dole's fault

  it's tough to find candidates when such a wide swath of your party is likely to be indicted. Only Traficant can run for office from Prison, ya know. :D

  (and Debs too)

  by RBH on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 04:34:59 PM PDT

•  Dolie

  is doing a heck of a job.

  Let them praise her.  Let them call Bill Frist an incredibly effective Senate leader.  Who am I to argue?

  by Steve M on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 04:59:54 PM PDT

•  I can only address this bilge one

  sentence at a time.

  Recent articles have ignored major Democrat recruiting misses in Virginia, Rhode Island and Maine.

  I am not aware of any recruitment efforts in Maine, and we managed to recruit two top Democrats in Rhode Island, although the two Congressmen did decline.  But because the Democratic bench is so deep in Rhode Island, the loss of two recruits is not as damaging as Dole and the GOP state.  In fact, the DSCC quickly recuperated with Whitehouse and Brown.  They are correct, however, about Virginia, except they ignore the simple fact that the field for the 2006 Senate race will remain ambiguous until the 2005 gubernatorial election.  All three points in this sentence are therefore demonstrably false.

  This is not the forum to dispute the Democrat's claims, but let it suffice to say that our candidates - Mike McGavick (Safeco CEO) in Washington who just reported raising over $700,000 in just 9 weeks and successful businessman Peter Ricketts in Nebraska (Former COO of Ameritrade) who raised nearly $375,000 in just 7 weeks are just as good.

  Mike McGavick and this unknown COO from Nebraska pale in comparison to Claire McCaskill, Jim Pederson and Bob Casey, Jr.  McCaskill is probably the best recruit of 2006, and Casey is already ahead of Santorum 14 percentage points.  Although Pederson has an uphill battle, he does have a chance to win, while McGavick can only hope to hold Cantwell at 55%.  Dole and the GOP also fail to mention that Casey raised more than Santorum in the last quarter.  Whose candidates are top tier?

  Most articles have also omitted mention of potentially nasty and destructive Democrat primaries in Maryland, Minnesota, Montana and Ohio.

  Perhaps they omit the primaries precisely because it is only the GOP who believes cleared fields and uncompetitive primaries secure candidates.  But who are the candidates in these primaries?  Patty Wetterling and Amy Klobuchar are both formidable candidates, and a heated primary will energize the DFL and galvanize intense support for either candidate.  Morrison and Tester are also top candidates, and a primary is ideal for a large state with a small population such as Montana.  In fact, the primary is free publicity for either Morrison or Tester.  Hackett and Brown will also force the Ohio Democratic party to mobilize around one candidate.  Because the Ohio Democratic party is recovering from years of disorganization, this will provide renewed energy for 2006.  And to think that a candidate crowned in DC will succeed in any of these states is simply quixotic.  For Tester, Klobuchar, Wetterling, McCaskill, Hackett and Pederson are all home grown, not chosen by Chuck Schumer.

  I should also state that the first two points of this memo are the same.  Because incumbency rates affect the number of open-seats, the variables are related and therefore should be fused into one point.  To separate them into two seperate points reveals the desperation of your organization.  
   

  by formalist on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 05:33:29 PM PDT