Today's Times has a very strong piece on GOP targeting (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/16/us/politics/16spend.html?hp&ex=1161057600&en=4ab375783b7dff54&ei=5094&partner=homepage). No surprise there, it's Adam Nagourney's writing, who seems to have a good handle on the process of campaigning.
The GOP is doing their traditional last-minute concentration of resources into selected races, and it will probably pay off. In the last three cycles, the GOP's candidates have had more success than their Democratic rivals and this partly has to do with the wise shifting of resources late in the campaign. Their success also has to do with a strong financial advantage that lets the GOP target from a position of strength.
But this year is different. With the Ney, DeLay, and Foley resignations, plus a few challenged Republican incumbents (Jack Ryun, Chris Chocola, John Sweeney for example) means that the GOP has enough exposure to worry about a Democratic takeover. And oh yeah, the Senate is ALWAYS in play. So the GOP is having to adapt to a new problem: targeting from a position of weakness. The GOP has the money, but they have more races where they are unsure than they have of late. So now the NRCC and NRSC appear to be dithering. The move of money from Ohio to Missouri is pretty smart, though I'd write Tennessee off and put more into Virginia, where George Allen is saveable despite Webb's Allen-empowered surge. It wouldn't surprise me to see the GOP's success rate of targeted races drop this year.
These elections, which looked to be a snoozer in March, are getting VERY interesting.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment