Red Racing Horses
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


About

Elections have consequences, from the race for President to the race for one seat on a city council. Those elections are the products of fascinating interactions between campaigns, party affiliations, voter turnout, and the media spotlight. Red Racing Horses analyzes and discusses elections from a Republican-leaning perspective. Thank you for visiting, and we hope you'll enjoy the blog.

~The RRH Moderators: BostonPatriot, Daniel Surman, GoBigRedState, Greyhound, James_Nola, Right Reformer, Ryan_in_SEPA, and Shamlet.

Problems logging into your account? Inside information? Complaints? Compliments? E-Mail us at: redracinghorses@yahoo.com. We check it often!

Please read our site Terms of Use.


Who should the NRSC and NRCC target in 2014

by: ctgrumpybear

Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 14:31:54 PM EST


it simple
what seats should be on the target list for the NRSC and NRCC in 2014??
ctgrumpybear :: Who should the NRSC and NRCC target in 2014
Tags: (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

NRCC should target Steve Israel
This is what the Dems did to Tom Reynolds in 2006 and it caused the House GOP all kind of headaches to have their campaign chairman having to keep one eye on his own re-election back home.

Israel got only got about 57% of the vote against a no name under funded some dude. GOP always run much better in off year election on LI. NRCC should find a big name (like Rick Lazio) or a big money (which there are a lot of in the district) challenger for Israel. Even if they dont win it would be great interference for the GOP.


Yes
There is no reason why a good GOP candidate with deep pockets shouldn't give Israel a good run for his money and if it's it just for the sake of annoying him.

German citizen - Conservative by heart, non native english speaker

[ Parent ]
To show my age
I might mention 1992, when the NRCC Chairman, Guy Vander Jagt (R-MI), lost his primary.

[ Parent ]
Got nothin on me
Best man at my wedding worked for Guy Vander Jagt

Left NRCC one cycle before their one in a lifetime triumph  


[ Parent ]
NRSC
for now, I think we should aim both barrels at the 7 Romney/Dem seats (WV, SD, AK, LA, AR, NC, MT) and ignore the rest until we see some retirements. We wasted a lot of time and money chasing after races we shouldn't have the past cycle (Florida being the worst example of this.) Plan A should be to sweep those 7 as they are all very winnable with the right circumstances. These are for the most part cheap states with small benches. We should be able to recruit top candidates in all of them, clear the primary field when necessary (with grassroots help of course) and pound the incumbents incessantly.

As for the second tier - NJ, NH, MN, OR, CO, NM, IA - it's fine to start laying some groundwork for those, talking to recruits and such, but until we see some retirements or the national climate starts to look genuinely good I don't think we should concentrate much at all on them. They all have the potential to be distracting shiny objects that ultimately turn into cash sinks.

And unless and until Warner retires I don't want us spending a penny in VA, or even trying to coax good people into challenging him. He is not beatable.

R, WV-1


Hear, hear!
How many millions were wasted on the seats in FL and OH when it became more than clear, that neither Nelson, nor Brown would go down ...

Top notch candidates, per favore! No more old guys who don't have the "lust for a win" in their belly and no more candidates who can not form a coherent argument when it comes to social issues. Clear the primaries as much as possible, talk to Tea Party folks and Libertarians(!!) to either get their support, or talk some sense into them.

Neither of these 7 Romney/Dem seats will be easy targets, not a single one of them. Get GOOD folks to announce early/raise cash to scare of primary challengers and take a page, or two out of Obama campaign's playbook.

German citizen - Conservative by heart, non native english speaker


[ Parent ]
Ohio has a tradition
Of future statewide winners losing a first race; so let's chalk the Mandel cash as investing for that future

Nelson looked vulnerable over Obamacare; but Justice Roberts made that issue far less useful; especially in the hands of the overrated Mack IV  


[ Parent ]
Mandel
Good point, and remember he came as close or closer this year than George Allen, Tommy Thompson, Scott Brown, and a host of others.  He only lost by 5, and it wasn't an open seat.  I believe only Rehberg did better against an incumbent Dem.  Heather Wilson was surprisingly close to that, though.

[ Parent ]
Yeah, I don't consider OH a waste
ditto with NM or HI. I'm talking mostly about FL, PA, MI, NJ, and ME. We should have basically written those off when we couldn't initially find top-tier recruits.

R, WV-1

[ Parent ]
Mandel lost by more than 5
The provisionals have helped Brown just like they have helped Obama. Final win will likely be over 6.

23/M/D/Native of OH-16, Now NC-04
Favorite Republicans: Lisa Murkowski and Richard Lugar.  


[ Parent ]
The rule in Ohio
was that no one was elected Governor or Senator without having run for one of those two offices before and losing. It hasn't been true, though, for the last two Governors (Kasich & Strickland) or last two Senators (Brown & Portman).

It's one of those rules that is true until it isn't, like "Senators can't be elected President."


[ Parent ]
Ohio Statewide "rule."
I read in one of the Barone Almanacs that a candidate has to run "statewide" and lose before winning.  That seems to include primaries (Metzenbaum in '74 senate primary for example).  Sherrod Brown was SOS from '82 to '90 when he lost to Bob Taft, so even he fits.  Kasich, Strickland and Portman, though, not so much.  Strickland did lose several house races in the late 70s before finally winning in '92.

[ Parent ]
Strickland's House races
1980: Lost
1992: Won
1994: Lost
1996: Won
1998: Won
2000: Won
2002: Won
2004: Won

1992 was under odd circumstances. Ohio lost two seats that year and control over the redistricting compromise was split. The inevitable compromise was reached--cut one Democrat from metro Cleveland and one Republican from the rest of the state. However, the designated GOP victim, 75-year-old Clarence Miller, didn't play along. Instead, he ran against fellow GOP Rep. Bob McEwen in a primary. That primary became so nasty that the party never reunited afterward and Strickland beat McEwen.


[ Parent ]
It was dumb
they could've sacked Chalmers Wylie, who did retire, instead, and carved up Columbus.

R, WV-1

[ Parent ]
Another thing about 1992 in Ohio
Rep. Don Pease (D) announced his retirement that year. Given that Ohio was losing two seats, it would have been logical for the legislature to think "This solves one of our problems." It says something about how well-connected Sherrod Brown was in the legislature that they kept Pease's seat intact for Brown under the circumstances.

[ Parent ]
Wasn't for Brown
It was for Pease, a la Barney Frank this year. Plus Eckart's South Cuyahoga seat was easier to eliminate.

R, WV-1

[ Parent ]
Answers.
Given that Rounds and Capito have already announced, it's clear the 7 Romney states are going to be the primary targets here. I'd expect Bill Cassidy to announce for LA-Sen sometime in the next few months. Either Parnell or Treadwell seems likely to run in AK, and Griffin, Darr or Thurston (land commissioner) look plausible in AR. The trick will be keeping Griffin, Darr and any other potentially strong Republicans from piling into an AR-Gov clown car. Womack and Cotton would be okay but not as good, Womack for regional reasons (same seat as Boozeman as I recall) and Cotton because he just won his first term in the house. Also Cotton's in his early thirties, so could wait several cycles and still be young enough to have a long senate career. Thom Tillis seems likely in NC. I have no idea about Montana, and think Baucus could be harder to beat than Tester (on the other hand Tester has more of a moderate reputation as I recall).

As for the NRCC, any seat we lost that was within 4 or 5 points in 2012 should be targetted. I think our goal in the house in 2014 should be a nice 10 to 15 seat gain, it being a 6 year itch and all. Some of the driftwood washed in by the Obama wave (cough Patrick Murphy cough) will wash out just as quickly, but it could be tough to win back seats in IL and CA. As far as challengers here, my general rule is that first-time candidates and those whose races weren't called on election night probably get right of first refusal for a rematch unless they did/do really stupid things between now and then. Oh, and always target special elections, of course.  

male, social, fiscal and foreign policy center-right Republican, in but not of academia, VA-08.


Thurston has announced he is running for reelection
He'd be an awful candidate for Senator since he has 0% name recognition and Pryor could pummel him from the beginning.  

[ Parent ]
Cotton having a "long Senate career"
That'd just be a waste of his talents. I see him and Ted Cruz as the two most likely freshmen to be President or Vice President some day.

From the old IL-10/new IL-09, living in PA-07
The GOP's roadmap to restored relevance: more Steve Litzows and fewer Steve Kings


[ Parent ]
UtT CD04
This seat should be a main target for the GOP target to try win again in 2014.I am all for running Mia Love again I know some want to run Josh Romney. I think it best to stay away form any sons of the 2012 pres candidates.

32, Male,NH, Conservative Republican , NH-CD02

You got stand for something or you will fall for anything"

Aaron Tippin


NRCC: Focus on the underdogs from last cycle
John Barrow, Mike McIntyre, and Jim Matheson all should have lost handily. Too many ticket-splitters vaulted these three "conservative" Democrats to the 113th Congress. There's good reason to believe they won't be as lucky in 2014. Barrow should be the most vulnerable. His Republican challenger, Lee Anderson, was a joke; he made Todd Akin look polished and erudite in comparison. Additionally, 36% of his district's voters were black. Seeing that John Barrow wasn't the reason they flocked to the polls, expect that number to drop considerably in '14. McIntyre and Matheson are not in much better shape. My only worry is that too many Utah Republicans are now gonna give Matheson a free pass, though. His victory against a party darling in a year where a Mormon was at the top of the ticket confounded many GOP bigwigs in the state.



Ryan/Kasich 2016


Search




Advanced Search


(C) RedRacingHorses
Powered by: SoapBlox