Why Some Candidates Don’t Get Endorsements

I was talking to a friend who was lamenting the Senate race in Massachusetts, where the guy running against Kerry just didn’t seem all that impressive.  It’s a real problem in states that have one party rule, since that tends to destroy both parties.  It destroys the party in power, because they no longer feel the need to please their constituents.  It destroys the opposition party, because no one worth their salt wants to run a campaign that’s guaranteed to lose.

Looking at the Massachusetts race from a gun point of view, John Kerry retains his F rating and Jeff Beatty carries an A grade, but no endorsement.  At the ANJRPC annual meeting a few weekends ago, we were addressed by a Republican candidate for Congress in New Jersey, Roland Straten.  When I say addressed, I actually mean yelled at.  This guy got up, and told us how mad he was at NRA and ANJRPC for not grading or endorsing him.  I don’t mean calmly and rationally either, you could actually tell he was visibly angry.  Well, it turns out that he has a grade from NRA.  I would suggest that if the best the New Jersey GOP can offer is someone who tries to get your support by yelling at you, that probably says a lot about why he’s not endorsed.

But NRA typically will not endorse a candidate unless their endorsement will actually help the candidate win.  There’s no way Massachusetts is electing a Republican to the Senate this year.  It’s just not going to happen, no matter who endorses him.  Roland Straten is also a sacrificial lamb.  Looking at his district, it’s most decidedly an uphill battle for any Republican, even ones who don’t have anger management issues.  But NRA doesn’t endorse in these races because the endorsement won’t help, and because it would reduce their endorsement win percentage.

All political organizations that issue endorsements are concerned about keeping the value of their endorsements high.  If you consistently endorse candidates who are lost causes, the number of elections you successfully swings drops, and along with that so does the value of your endorsement.  NRA’s endorsement win percentage is high for an issue organization.  In the 2004 election, it was 96%.  The 2006 election was rough, which dropped it to 86%.  Studies have shown that NRA’s endorsement is worth anywhere from 3 to 6 percentage points in an election, depending on the number of NRA members residing in the district.  There’s not much to be gained, either by the candidate, or by NRA, in endorsing a challenger who’s not even close.

NRA Endorsements for Libertarians

This Libertarian candidate is upset that NRA doesn’t endorse Libertarians:

Throughout this campaign I have let my constituents know that I was a NRA member and supporter and have expressed this on my Web site and my campaign material. This only shows that the NRA is either run by or scared of the Republican Party.I spent 27 years as a Republican only to find out that they had abandoned me. Now it is the National Rifle Association that has also done the same. Who is it today that will represent America?

Well, I wouldn’t say the NRA is too scared of the Republican Party, considering this year they have endorsed quite a number of Democrats, including this latest one in Texas.  But Libertarian Candidate Teddy Fleck needs to grasp some important political realities here.

One, Libertarians don’t win.  If every gun voter voted Libertarian, they still wouldn’t win, and both major parties would quickly abandon gun rights because they have nothing to gain by supporting it.  Gun owners are one interest among many, and we don’t have political power outside of acting in coalition with other interests.  If every gun owner voted as a gun owner, on gun rights alone, we might have something.  But that’s not going to happen.

Two, most gun owners are not Libertarian.  Many have libertarian leanings, but I can count on my fingers the number of philosophically Libertarian gun owners I’ve run into doing my grassroots work.  I’ve run into more liberal Democrats.  I’ve run into one person who is voting for Baldwin, the Constitution Party candidate, and exactly no one who said they are voting for Bob Barr.  Not a scientific study, but if there’s energy and enthusiasm out there for Libertarian and other third party candidates, I’m not seeing it.

Three, most gun owners are not single issue voters, despite my best attempts to make them.  I’ve found more Obama supporters than all the third party candidates combined.  Many Obama supporters are aware of his record on guns, but are voting other issues this election, like jobs and the economy, union loyalties, or various other issues.  Further dividing the gun vote to third party candidates who don’t stand a chance isn’t going to accomplish anything other than weakening our political power.

Did I mention Libertarians don’t win?  When you’re an issue organization, maximizing your political influence is the number one goal.  Ideological concerns take a back seat to that.  You focus on the gun issue, and develop a strategy to maximize your influence, since third parties have little or no influence, there’s nothing to be gained there.  That might piss some people off, but that’s reality.

Mark Warner and AQ?

Some probably notice that some candidates have an NRA grade “AQ” which basically means that their grade is based on solely on their answers to a questionnaire.  This might be really surprising to a lot of you, but politicians have been known to lie to curry favor with voters.  I know, hard to believe.  More than a few see their grades drop once they get in office and actually start voting on our issues.  Bitter thinks Mark Warner’s A grade is undeserved because he’s never really been callenged on the gun issue in Virginia.  If Mark Warner really believes that NRA is a threat to America, I think even an AQ is too good for him.

Did They Really Think This?

This would seem to indicate that Barr’s campaign staff expected an endorsement.  Some are saying they were told NRA wouldn’t endorse this year.  I have to wonder how much contact Bob Barr has with his campaign staff, and what he was leading them to believe.  As an NRA Board Member, and as a politician who worked in Congress with NRA for many years, Barr had to know he wasn’t getting the endorsement; NRA would either endorse McCain, or not endorse.  Bob Barr has done some wonderful things for NRA, pariticularly in fighting the International Gun Control Movement, but on a third party ticket, there was just no way that was going to happen.  It’s a shame his staff seems to think they were going to get the nod.

Endorsement Forthcoming?

This AP article hints that NRA may be preparing to endorse the McCain/Palin ticket:

The NRA has not yet endorsed a presidential candidate, but LaPierre planned news conferences Thursday in Pennsylvania, Missouri, Colorado and Nevada to make an announcement on the presidential election. He declined Wednesday to reveal which candidate the NRA would endorse but added that the group would “be foolish to overlook the vast areas of agreement” it has with McCain.

I don’t think there is any other choice here.  We must defeat Obama.  With him running around threatning consequences to radio and TV station broadcast licenses, it would be hard to even hold the Campaign Finance stuff against McCain at this point.

Obama Camp Misappropriates NSSF Mailing List

Looks like there’s about to be a fight between the Obama Campaign and the National Shooting Sports foundation.  Just a guess here, but I’m betting that the list is protected by trade secret laws, which I understand is handled at the state level.  This should be interesting.

My understanding is that with trade secrets, if someone, for instance, left the list out on a table, and someone from the Obama camp picked it up, the campaign would not be liable.  But if they inticed someone to get it for them, they could be liable for misappropriating a trade secret.

More interesting stuff: There is a federal law called the Economic Espionage Act, passed in 1996, which makes misappropriating a trade secret a federal crime.  It not only makes the misappropriation of trade secrets a federal crime, but also conspiracy to misappropriate trade secrets a crime.