2010 Election – Page 7 – Shall Not Be Questioned

Brady Campaign: Please Don’t Believe the NRA Democrats, Pretty Please!

It looks like Paulie is begging Democrats to ignore history, the advice of their past (successful) leaders, and scholarly research. In his post yesterday, he skirts around the truth in a plea begging Democrats not to go running into the arms of the NRA.

This myth that promoting and passing strict gun laws can be political suicide has its roots in the 1994 elections, when Democrats lost control of both houses of Congress. Bill Clinton was president and earlier in his term he supported and signed the laws restricting the sale of assault weapons and the Brady bill requiring that federally licensed dealers conduct background checks. In his 2004 autobiography he wrote, â€œThe NRA â€¦could rightly claim to have made Gingrich the House speaker.â€

But as Clinton also pointed out, there were a lot of other reasons for the game-changing defeats. The party in control almost always loses seats in off-year elections. It was to be no different in 1994.

Let’s look at the mid-term elections prior to 1994 to see if we can see just how true that is:

1982	1986	1990	1994
26 seats	5 seats	8 seats	54 seats

At no point in my lifetime was there anything close to the election of 1994. You can’t compare losing 5 or 8 seats to losing 54 seats. You can’t even begin to compare 26 seats – the previous record of my lifetime. So, yes, Paul is telling the truth. But, he’s hiding the fact that you’re talking about a handful of people losing their seats to more than 10% of the House changing hands. To paraphrase Joe Biden, that’s a big freakin’ deal. Paul can try to downplay it all he wants, but he can’t escape those pesky contextual facts.

Even beyond the numbers game, there is a little bit of truth in what Paul argues – NRA’s support can’t make or break every race in every election. If leaders piss off grassroots members of 20 other interest groups, it’s going to be tough for the members of one single group to outnumber the members of so many others. Not to mention, now that Democrats have done all they can to piss off not only Republicans, but a majority of independents, well, there’s only so much we can do as one single group.

However, the power of the NRA is at the individual district level. An Independence Institute study found that for every 10,000 NRA members, an endorsement will add about 3% to a candidate’s total. I think our own congressional race is a great example.

When the two current candidates ran against each other in 2006, the difference was a mere 1,518 votes across the entire district. Most of the district is made up of Bucks County, so I’m looking at their license to carry information to give estimates on just how many votes gun owners can provide. In 2006, nearly 4,500 people of voting age got a carry license in Bucks County. Add in the “current” licenses of people at the time, and you’re talking about 17,194 potential votes in the district. There’s no way to figure it up for the portion of Philadelphia included in the congressional district, but that portion of the city has a large number of firefighters and police officers who are frequently pro-gun. (Believe me, we’ve had lots of cops calling to find out who is endorsed by NRA this year.) Let’s safely say 20,000 potential voters.

Every single one of those votes matters, and NRA has had an active voter registration drive going the last few years. If we can pull a couple of thousand more votes out of those numbers, then the endorsement & promotion will make a difference.

As mighty as the NRA is perceived to be by overly cautious politicians and their advisors, thanks to the courage of leaders, scores of victims, and supporters of sensible gun laws, the gun lobby doesnâ€™t make much of a difference on who wins and loses elections.

The Brady Campaign can’t point to a study of the impact of their endorsements in elections. They don’t have voters walking up to candidates with a voter guide in hand saying that the group’s support guided their votes. They can’t actually point to any races where their support did make a difference. In a year like this, NRA’s endorsement is likely to help boost the numbers by just enough to put some challengers over the top and possibly protect some incumbents.

Again, Paul is correct in that NRA doesn’t exactly get to handpick all of Congress. But, what they can measurably do is impact enough races that politicians clamor to us in order to pick up our votes in hopes that their race is one to benefit. So, once again, context matters.

Laying the Ground Work

The Brady Campaign is pretty clearly laying the ground work for their push to get the Democrats to abandon the NRA post-election, by saying the 1994 elections were never really about guns, and that the Democrats who do not take NRA money (and who are also, conveniently, in safe, heavily lefty Democratic urban districts) are going to fare better than those who do.

The real lesson for the Democrats is that you can’t expect to win your majority back with pro-gun Blue Dog Democrats, then twist their arms to vote for Pelosi and Obama’s radical agenda, and then expect the gun vote to save you. The gun vote is powerful, but not that powerful. Being pro-gun is still going to win those candidates more than it will cost them, and in some of those districts it’s necessary to get elected at all.

Social Issues in a Crumbling Economy

If you want to appear out-of-touch with voters, the fastest way to do that is to send the kind of flyer I received from Democratic Rep. Patrick Murphy yesterday.

Background: According to the lists they have, I’m a Republican woman and have only been registered in Pennsylvania as a Republican. (This is unusual for me, as I haven’t been formally affiliated with either party since I was a teenager and initially registered in Oklahoma.) On paper, I’m dedicated enough to have voted in the Republican primary, and the last time I voted in a general, the GOP swept all of the county races. In other words, there’s nothing about my Pennsylvania voting history that indicates I’m open to their messages on either fiscal or social issues.

Every Democrat running in this state has been hammering on the economy. They know it’s what people want to hear. Yet, Murphy decided to send me a mailer that has women’s faces plastered on one side telling me that Mike Fitzpatrick will ban abortion. The other side says, “We’ve been here before.”

My response to Sebastian when I showed him the mailer this morning: “No, I’ve never been there before. I’m a Republican woman who is iffy on the abortion issue at best, and I’ve never been sitting on a dirty street with my head between my knees in a trashy looking dress.” There is literally nothing on the flyer that I can identify with – women having sex on the street, women getting abortions left and right, the fact that I know the Supremes are not going to change Roe, and there’s no serious threat to abortion in the political world right now.

Sebastian then pointed out that while there’s not a huge pro-life movement here in our district, the chances are extremely high that a woman who has registered with the Republican Party and votes in their primaries is actually an abortion opponent. He’s right about that, especially given the highly Catholic population around here. While many might overlook Murphy’s votes to fund abortions with their money, having his pro-abortion stance thrown in their face will almost certainly turn them off.

We can’t find one thing about this flyer that is remotely relevant to the issues that local voters are talking about this year. There’s nothing that’s on message to my voter file at all. I can’t even fathom what made him do this.

What Do You Do if You’re Dan Onorato?

As I was running errands yesterday, I couldn’t help but notice a very lonely Dan Onorato for Governor sign sitting in a median – no owner, no signs of friends posted immediately around it. And I got to thinking, what should a candidate like Dan Onorato do?

Last month, the County Executive had a whooping $3.3 million in the bank. When you consider we have one of the most expensive media markets in the country, and the rest of the state is spread out among a bunch of different markets, that doesn’t go terribly far in buying television advertising when you factor in all the other normal expenses in a campaign – including the “street money” to buy votes in Philly.

His opponent, Attorney General Tom Corbett, reported $7.7 million on hand. To top that off, in every single poll, he’s trouncing Onorato from 7-15 points.

So, Onorato clearly doesn’t have state recognition or voter approval, even after running a general campaign since he won a contested primary in March that gave him lots of coverage over Corbett and his lack of a serious primary. He doesn’t have enough enthusiasm to rally the base to open their wallets. Unless we end up with a live boy/dead girl scenario, this race is in the bag.

With that in mind, do you spend the money in the areas where you need high Democratic turnout to have any shot of winning? Or, do you effectively give up on the Governor’s mansion and spend in areas where you are polling poorly in an attempt to simply build name recognition for a future run for some other statewide office? What would you suggest for Onorato?

Crying Wolf Sexism

A Democratic candidate in a solidly Republican district in Virginia has had older photos of her, uh, boyfriend’s Halloween costume in her mouth. And his Halloween costume just happened to be a bright red sex toy and a leash.

Unfortunately, she’s screaming sexism. She’s convinced the media would never cover these photographs at all if she only had a penis. I would do quite a rant about why it’s not sexist to cover a political scandal, but I think the folks at Gawker said it best:

She continues: “I’m angry at the way women in this country are unfairly treated in this regard when they step up and run for office.” Because if a man sucked a rubber dick attached to the nose of another man, we would never publish that picture.

That link is also where you can find the pictures that include her posing in her revealed thigh highs, lace skirt, and drink in hand.

For the record, I realize that most reasonable people are going to have embarrassing skeletons in the closet. With the rise of digital photography and the ease of taking and storing pictures on devices that slide into your pocket, more of these types of photos will naturally be taken than they were before. These pictures don’t disqualify her for the office. They were apparently shortly after she graduated college, so it’s not surprising to see these kinds of antics among most people that age.

What I think makes her unqualified for my vote (if I had one there) is her screaming sexism where none exists. The fact is that these photos would be plastered around if she was a man. Oh, and her C rating from NRA doesn’t help her case to voters, either.

NRA-PVF Starting to Spend Money

Even the New York Times is saying a favorable word this year. The bill is going to be fifteen to twenty million this election cycle. One of the ads they are running is against Joe Sestak:

In a year that most people aren’t too concerned about guns, this ad doesn’t give it more than a passing mention. The messaging works out in Pennsylvania because we have pro-gun conservative Republicans running against anti-gun leafy Democrats, in both our major state-wide races. Dems here haven’t gotten the message that being anti-gun is uncool yet.

The great challenge this year is that everyone is worried about big government, deficits, spending, and the economy. A message that Joe Sestak is a wild-eyed gun grabber isn’t going to carry as much water as saying he’s an out of touch big government politician, who, by the way, doesn’t care much for your Second Amendment rights.

Someone to Vouch for McCarthy’s Opponent

Looks like John Richardson knows the guy running against Carolyn McCarthy. She’s looking more an more vulnerable, and I’m really salivating over the possibility of getting her out. Brady has raised very little federal PAC money in the 2010 cycle. I think their only donations have been incidental. Of the approximately 4700 dollars they have spent, McCarthy has been the only person in Congress Brady has donated to at the 1000 dollar level, and only one of two candidates getting that much this cycle. They are busy raising money for their Illinois PAC, however, and this indicates that this election they are just trying not to lose more ground. There’s a very good chance that Illinois is going to flip from anti to pro in the next election.

UPDATE: Jacob, in the comments, points out that he voted along with Bloomberg on colored guns. That certainly doesn’t speak well for him, but all I need from him at this point is just to be better than Carolyn McCarthy. I’ll worry about rolling the dice again with him later.

Good News for Gun Owners

Carolyn McCarthy is on the verge of being tea partied out of office. Needless to say, despite her ineffectiveness, it would be wonderful to get her out of Congress. If you want to donate to her challenger’s campaign, you can here. He is pro-Second Amendment.

Elections have Consequences

In this case, maybe the consequences wouldn’t quite be the end of the world if the Democrats manage to keep hold of the state House – at least for gun owners. From the always witty John Micek:

At 10 a.m. in the Media Center, Rep. Nick Kotik, D-Allegheny, puts his cart well before the horse by announcing his plan to run for House speaker next year. Have to hold onto the majority first, Representative.

Currently, the House is run by Rep. Keith McCall who is solidly pro-gun. I have no doubt that fact played a huge role in the success of moving Castle Doctrine as a clean bill yesterday. However, he announced he planned to retire after this term, so we were stuck in limbo wondering if an anti-gunner would run for Speaker. The good news is that Rep. Kotik was rated A in 2008 and even carried the endorsement in his last race.*

The downside of the Democrats holding on to the House would be in redistricting battles and the fact that committee chairs would still mostly be anti-gun folks. Moving bills would still be very hard, even with overwhelming support in the full chamber. So, even though I love my pro-gun Democrats, I’m still going to work to make sure that the House flips to Republican hands.

*Since NRA’s new PVF website removed the archives, I had to put in a request for the grade. (Hint, hint guys – I used that information for post research.)

The Odd Election Year Dance Around Self-Defense

As we wait for the House of Representatives to cast the final floor vote on Castle Doctrine today, I decided to take a look at the weird little dance that some Democrats and Republicans took around the issue. Some of these moves just leave me scratching my head. Why pick some of these fights in an election year? For others, they deserve big kudos.

Todd Eachus (D) – This guy baffles me. In 2008, he was A rated and received the NRA endorsement. Based on that, you’d think he wouldn’t have a problem with self-defense. And, based on his vote to pass Castle Doctrine, that would seem to be the case. But, his comments and other votes are what add to the confusion. First, he voted on the motion to have a floor vote on Castle Doctrine. Then, he voted against the motion that withheld the anti-gun amendments. So he wanted the anti-gun stuff to come up for a vote. Okay…that could be argued that as Majority Leader, he was just trying to appease the Philly delegation in a vote that would lose with or without his support.

But, this morning he’s quoted in the papers bitching that we were “heavyhanded” in trying to get a floor vote. If the vote was a throw away to the Philly delegation, that’s not ideal, but not the end of the world. But why be their go-to boy for the anti-gun coalition in the press? Why not leave the Philly delegation to do their own dirty work? As Sebastian said when I read that to him on his drive to work, “Aren’t the members from Philly the ones being ‘heavyhanded’ since they held up a bill with overwhelming bipartisan support?”

I’m assuming that he’ll be safe with NRA support this year, and I don’t blame them for that. But, if he insists on going above and beyond for the Philly delegation on the gun issue, then I’ll make sure we cover every statement. There’s no need to be their spokesman, they do a fine job of shoving their feet down their own throats when it comes to speaking out on our Constitutional rights.

Denny O’Brien (R) – What on earth. This guy was A rated in 2008. He is one of few and far between pro-gun Philly representatives. Really? Self-defense is what moves him to vote against us? He voted to bring the bill up for a floor vote, then he turned and voted against us by opposing the vote to keep it a clean bill, and then he voted against us on the actual floor vote. That’s disappointing because several of the police officers who have called me in the last few days to find out who to vote for have been in his district. I’ll keep an open mind until the final vote today to see if there was some confusion yesterday, but I’d hate to call them all and tell them that Rep. O’Brien suddenly voted against us on this important issue.

Josh Shapiro (D) – I’m confused. This is a representative who should not want to vote on gun issues. Yes, he represents a part of Montgomery County that very well might back a gun ban, but being anti-gun doesn’t win him any votes. In fact, he has his eye on higher office – statewide office. He cannot win with a strong anti-gun record if he has to campaign outside of his immediate area. So, you would think that it would be in his best interest to stick with us (he’s been with us a few times) when it’s a fairly uncontroversial vote and then lay low the rest of the time. It doesn’t hurt him, and he won’t have to worry about a negative record when he finally takes the plunge statewide.

While we should give him kudos for supporting the uncontroversial Castle Doctrine bill, I would love to understand why he decided to join the Philly delegation in wanting to bring up the half dozen or so anti-gun amendments forward. If their effort had been successful, he would have had to vote on every one of those amendments. While he’s probably vote with us on some, he’d then put a political target on his back for every single anti-gun vote he cast.

Jim Wansacz (D) – I took some hell for supporting this pro-gun representative in his solidly Democratic district. Unfortunately, he didn’t win the primary to take the Senate seat up there, so he won’t be serving in the legislature in the future. But, I’m really happy to see that regardless of his legislative future, Rep. Wansacz stuck with us on all three votes yesterday. If there are any readers up in his district, you should probably drop him a note of thanks.

Frank Farry (R) – He gets a mention since he’s our representative, and he voted the right way on every single vote on Castle Doctrine. This comes from a guy whose campaign didn’t return the NRA questionnaire in 2008. He actually knows he lost votes because of it, and just like we predicted, Rep. Farry is willing to stand up for our right to self-defense. Go us. (And, tomorrow I’ll see if I can track down a lawn sign to go up immediately until Election Day.)

Steve Santarsiero (D) – What is this dude thinking? His district is even farther out of Philly than ours is, and he’s a Democrat running in a year that doesn’t exactly have high expectations for his party. He was only elected in 2008, and he submitted a questionnaire that earned him a B rating against a Republican who refused to answer the questionnaire. However, his votes against us, and his subsequent endorsement by CeaseFire have shown his true colors. For a guy who rode the coattails of Obama to his office, you’d think that he’d not pick a fight with us. That would be the smart thing to do for anyone who wanted to keep their office. And now, it looks like that grade will drop, and his opponent has been reaching out to sportsmen in the district.