GOP Nominee
Former Candidates
While the Democrats run (and run well thus far) on Howard Dean’s once-maligned 50 state strategy, the Republicans are surrendering territory in ways that would make the French proud.
The filing deadline to challenge Mark Pryor for his US Senate seat was yesterday, and the Arkansas Republican Party announced that nobody will be running against him.
Let me say that again. Nobody from the Republican Party will be running against Democrat Mark Pryor for his US Senate seat in the red state of Arkansas.
The GOP begins 2008 at a stark disadvantage already, having to defend 23 Senate seats; the Dems, 12. Except that we are not putting up a challenger at all in AR, DE, or RI, bringing that last number down to 9. Way to go, Republicans. (And where is Mike Huckabee when you really need him?)
[UPDATE: Steve Kirby, former Lt. Gov in South Dakota has now announced he will not run against Tim Johnson, in essence giving Johnson a free ride to re-election. This is a seat we should have been massively targeting... drop that number down to 8.]
[UPDATE II: Marc Ambinder, based off of this same news from AR and SD, says that there is only one seat the Democrats are defending that the GOP is even putting up "a challenge worth calling a challenge" -- Louisiana, where Kennedy is fighting Landrieu. Those other 11 seats, it seems, we've given back to the Dems on a silver platter. Ugh.]
March 11th, 2008 at 8:43 am
I doubt we would have beaten Senator Pryor since he is a pretty centrist Democrat, but we should have at least put up a fight. You will see a huge McCain victory in Arkansas if Obama is the nominee.
March 11th, 2008 at 8:49 am
The only one who probably could have won is the Huckster anyway. Maybe it’s better for the image of the party if God Boy just rides off into the sunset.
March 11th, 2008 at 8:52 am
Will the Republicans put up a “Going Out of Business” sign when more than 200 Democratcs are running unopposed in the U.S. House and more of the Democrats are running unopposed in the U.S. Senate?
Why would anyone in their 20’s want to get involved in Republican Politics when they know that the Republicans are going to have no effect on government policy? Are there really people who want to be involved in a small, minority party just to insert earmarks into the budget and so they get invited to a few cocktail parties?
March 11th, 2008 at 8:52 am
Arkansas can only be called a “red state” when referring to presidential politics.
March 11th, 2008 at 9:06 am
This is embarrassing. Come on, the commercials are pretty easy to envision. “Mark Pryor voted with Barack Obama 88% of the time while in the Senate. How often will he vote with him when he’s President?”
Oh well.
March 11th, 2008 at 9:09 am
Adam, why do you call Huckabee “God Boy”? Do you dislike religious people? I think liberals showed what they think of religious people when they referred to the states that voted for Bush as “Jesusland”. Perhaps you are of that mentality too.
March 11th, 2008 at 9:10 am
I actually think this is a fairly good thing. Only Huckabee could have possibly beaten Pryor. I doubt even Kirby could have beaten Johnson, but he would have been competitive. If he we couldn’t convince those two to run, the NRSC is better off huddling their resources, instead of being tempted to throw them at losing Senatorial elections in red states. We’ve got like a gazillion seats to defend as it is. VA is gone. NH, NM, and Oregon look awfully shaky. CO looks like a toss-up. MN and ME will fall away if things go sour for us. And I’m probably forgetting a vulnerable seat or two. Yes, it would have been nice if we could have fielded serious challenges in AR and SD. But, the bench simply wasn’t their, and other then the only standby of “successful business-leader rides in on a white horse”, there’s really not much opportunity to make any headway in that situation. So we’re better off focusing on LA, and defending NH, NM, OR, CO, MN, and ME. And we’ll count ourselves very lucky if we can win 4 of the 7.
March 11th, 2008 at 9:14 am
Actually, I hate to flip-flop, but perhaps Matthew Miller has a point. Every penny spent trying to beat Pryor is money that could be spent trying to save Norm Coleman or Gordon Smith or other incumbents. In New Hampshire in 2006, the state Senate leadership and the state party didn’t really grasp the idea that certain districts are Democratic or Republican based on demographics. They allocated their resources trying to beat incumbent Democrats in staunchly Democratic districts while ignoring incumbent Republicans running for re-election. They didn’t end up beating one of the Democrats they went after and lost 6 seats and control.
March 11th, 2008 at 9:14 am
Clarence,
Actually I just don’t like when our *political* candidates proclaim that they are going to “take back this country for Christ”. That’s fine for a church leader. But I don’t want it in politics.
March 11th, 2008 at 9:18 am
Also, let’s be clear here about why this happened in the first place: we have no leadership in this party. Instead of appointing serious people to head our party, like the Dems have (Dean’s a loony, but he’s qualified, connected, and competent) we’re tossing out affirmative action picks like Mel Martinez, and then when they prove to be utterly useless, we just abandon the scheme altogether. Last I checked, we have no Dean counterpart at this point? Is this anything approaching sanity? Put Mitt Romney in charge of the party, inspite of all his white maleness. Or Vin Weber. Or someone, anyone, with serious contacts and fundraising capability. Heck, I could find a better party leader by using strategies out of a Malcolm Gladwell book. Try this: send out a survey to former Governor’s, congressman, senators, etc, with a list of 200 random last names. The former official who knows the most people with those last names is our new party chairman.
March 11th, 2008 at 9:22 am
Clarence Claus,
If the NRSC hadn’t wasted a gazillion dollars trying to save the turncoat, useless excuse for a man Lincoln Chafee, and had spent that money on George Allen, Jim Talent, or Conrad Burns, we’d be in the majority. We’d probably have held all three seats. Jim Talent was just about my favorite senator, and it’s excruciating that we lost him because the NRSC thought they could save an utter RINO who was facing political royalty in the bluest state in the country, in the worst year for the GOP in 25 years.
March 11th, 2008 at 9:36 am
11 - Yep.
March 11th, 2008 at 9:47 am
That’s my problem with 50 state campaigns; 50 state campaigns are long-term projects. When they very occasionally become short-term projects, a certain set of pre-conditions have to be in place. Your party has to be in good repute, for one thing. You must have nearly unlimited resources. Etc. A 50 state campaign is something Barack Obama, with 350 million dollars, tries to wage in 2008. It’s not something that John McCain or Rudy Giuliani quixotically decide to attempt, with no resources, and as the Republican brand crashes. If you’re John McCain in 2008, you micro-target and micro-target again. You compete in 8-10 states, and dare Barack to go after your 20 “relatively safe states”. You don’t suddenly decide, with no data to support this conclusion, to compete in California (as John McCain is reportedly planning to do). Political campaigns must take into marginal benefits, utility, etc, just like any other economic enterprise.
March 11th, 2008 at 10:05 am
What a disgrace. What’s with this stupid party?
March 11th, 2008 at 10:11 am
What is the deal!! i am starting to really loath our party. first we nominate mccain, now this crap. and huck says he is a ‘party guy’ whatever. he could have won that seat with his eyes closed.
March 11th, 2008 at 10:11 am
MEM,
totally right. The GOP has become a candidate-run party. But candidates don’t bother nourishing the infrststtructure to get the people to replace them. The Dems right now are benefiting from not having the Presidency (just as the GOP benefited from not having the Presidency in the 90s). Look, the GOP just appointed a bunch of
McCain loyalists to help run things. They include Carly Fiorina, whose incompetence is legendary. But she’s a longterm McCain backer. So in return for some marginal benefit to this year’s presidential campaign, you once again ignore party-building, long term organizational strength, or any of the dozen other things that really matter.
March 11th, 2008 at 10:12 am
#15,
Huckabee is putting himself first, otherwise he’d be running for Senate. Totally agreed. He and the folks who would rather have Ark be Dem. rather than have Huckabee elected are just too short-sighted and selfish for effective politics.
March 11th, 2008 at 10:14 am
So how many House and Senate seats are the Democrats projected to hold as of January, 2009? Probably more than 55 Senate seats and more than 240 House seats.
March 11th, 2008 at 10:15 am
What is the deal!! i am starting to really loath our party. first we nominate mccain, now this crap. and huck says he is a ‘party guy’ whatever. he could have won that seat with his eyes closed.
Hahahahahahaha!
That’s YOUR fault, for ever trusting Huckabee or thinking that his running wasn’t just about his own ambition, the entire time!!!
Hahahahahaha!!
March 11th, 2008 at 10:18 am
Last I checked, we have no Dean counterpart at this point? Is this anything approaching sanity? Put Mitt Romney in charge of the party, inspite of all his white maleness. Or Vin Weber. Or someone, anyone, with serious contacts and fundraising capability.
Mitt Romney? “Fundraising capability”? You mean “his wallet”?
Good God, will this man never go away!
All of this talk of Romney as McCain’s VP is horrifying me, too.
Fine, though. Fine. Put him in charge of the party. Make him GOP Chairman. Fine. Just to get him as far, far away from any elected office as he can get. Will this nightmare never cease?!
March 11th, 2008 at 10:22 am
DaveG, I think the Democrats will have between 52 and 55 seats. It will not be 60-40 like some people think. They just won’t beat THAT many incumbents. On the House side, I have not gone through it race by race, but I doubt it will change much either way.
March 11th, 2008 at 10:23 am
TLG, Romney raised a lot of money too. It did not all come from his wallet.
March 11th, 2008 at 10:24 am
TLG, putting Romney’s own wallet aside for a moment, he still raised more funds than any other GOP candidate during the primary season. He’s got the connections and contacts to be a successful fundraiser for the party.
I agree with your #19, though, and also agree that a McCain/Romney ticket wouldn’t work.
March 11th, 2008 at 11:05 am
#19, uh, you know very well that i NEVER trusted huckasmuck. And i always thought he was all about himself. that is very evident from his trip to the caymans or wherever it was. he will use his run to go make money because that is what he is interested in despite his constant class warfare.
March 11th, 2008 at 11:09 am
[...] http://race42008.com/2008/03/11/no-challenger-for-pryors-senate-seat-in-arkansas/Â Â Matt CÂ 10-11-2008 [...]
March 11th, 2008 at 11:17 am
Matt #23,
Not to fight old battles, but he did not. Rudy raised more money than Mitt:
Total receipts in 2007:
Rudy Giuliani $61.6 million
Mitt Romney $53.5 million
See here and here.
Now it bought him a total of one delegate… But the fact remains.
March 11th, 2008 at 11:57 am
Kavon, when you don’t include general election funds (which Romney never actively sought in 2007), the numbers look a little different:
Romney:
1st - 21.13
2nd - 14
3rd - 9.8
4th - 9
TOTAL - 53.93
Giuliani:
1st - 13.75
2nd - 15
3rd - 10.5
4th - 10
TOTAL - 49.25
So Romney outraised Giuliani for primary funds. Guess I should have clarified that.
March 11th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
If only the Huckster had abandoned his vanity project at a reasonable time maybe he could have done something useful!
March 11th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
No doubt Romney could do good things for the party of GOP chairman, but that doesn’t really set him up for a run for the WH in 2012. Primary campaigns are now starting about 20 months before the general - that means that Romney would be able to, at most, provide two years of solid dedication to the chairmanship.
I would rather see a McCain/Romney ticket. Yeah the GOP needs a leader, but lets face it, people like Romney, who are accomplished, experienced, strong on Domestic issues, and Conservative, are too good not to put in office.
Yes, the party needs a better leader, and yes Romney would do well in that position, but Romney could more good for the country in political office.
March 11th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
28,
I would hardly call it a vanity project……maybe you should have paid more attention to it.
March 11th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
I find it funny that Everybody says Mr. Huckabee should run for the Arkansas Seat, but nobody is asking Mr. Romney to run in MA. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Is Mr. Romney a team player or not?
March 11th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
Ohio Joe,
Nobody is asking Romney to run in Mass. because everyone knows Romney can’t WIN in Mass.
March 11th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
And with that logic, what makes you so sure that Mr. Huckabee would win Arkansas? I would think that Mr. Kerry should not be any tougher to beat than Mr. Pryor.
March 11th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
MA is one of the four most liberal states in the country. The chances that Republicans will unseat a senior U.S. Senator in that state are slim to none.
Romney will be called on by his party, rest assured. Support for a McCain/Romney ticket is growing stronger daily - and Romeny is going on Fox tonight, so I’m sure we’ll be hearing more about in in the next couple days. If Romney doesn’t manage to get the VP spot, well, he could very well end up as GOP chairman - though I think that would be a waste of his talent, it could still be where he ends up. If not either of those, look for Romney to take over as a kind of Conservative leader - similar to the role Reagan played between his governorship and election as President.
HOPEFULLY, however, he will get the VP spot.
March 11th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
act-blog,
Look, I love Romney as much as the next guy, but this constant all-Romney, all-the-time drumbeat that some folks are beating is somewhat tiresome. I mentioned him for GOP chairman, because it’s primarily an organizational position, which requires a good level of small-scale salesmanship. These are emphatically Romney strengths. But, I doubt very much that Mitt will ever be our president. He won’t be VP, in all likelihood, this year. And if McCain loses, I suspect we’ll end up with a Petraeus/Jindal or Petraeus/Palin ticket in 2012. From what I’ve heard recently, Petraeus has apparently mentioned an interest in the top job, and while we don’t know his political leanings, it’s extremely difficult to imagine the modern Democratic Party nominating the guy who won the Iraq War.
March 11th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
I hope that Mr. Romney is not the VP, but if he is, Oh well.
March 11th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
There is one perfect way to put Romney on the same ticket as McCain and make both men look good. McCain would let it be known that Romney would be in charge of a special task force dedicated to ferreting out and eliminating Federal Budget Waste.
They both have repeatedly said they want to attack FBW. Romney showed he could attack budget waste in Massachusetts, and that was with a Legislature of 85% Democrats. It is just the sort of knotty problem that sets Romney’s juices flowing. McCain supports the idea of cutting FBW but has played mainly lip-service to it. In the Senatorial world of give-and-take, it is extremely hard not to. But there is one thing I do trust McCain on, and that is his desire to cut FBW. So, give it to Romney to do.
It would be a win/win for both men. It would be a win/win for our party and a win/win for the country.
Putting Romney on the ticket “to appeal to conservatives” is not a good enough reason to do it. It is too much of a pander. Putting him on the ticket to attack FBW and oh-by-the-way appeal to conservatives makes far more sense.
March 11th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
Mr. Romney might appeal to some Conservatives, but not me. I am not convinced that he is a social Conservative, I’m not impressed with his foreign policy knowledge (although I guess I should give him a pass on that because most candidates are at least a little weak in that area) and his health care policies are too liberal and too Canadian for me. Hey if you think he is Conservative enough for you fine, but some of us in the party think differently.
March 11th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
So its wrong to try to push Romney for VP?
Yeah, whatever.
Look, I’ve said this before, I’m open to candidates other than Romney, I just have yet to find one who can match up to his combination of experience, accomplishments, and conservatism. If you can list one, by all means, feel free. But as of yet, the names I have heared simply don’t compare. Jindal is too young, Palin, well I just don’t see it working out, Pawlenty lacks economic experience, and Petraeus? You’ve got to be kidding me…the last thing the GOP needs is another military man who has no experience on domestic issues. Our failure to confront the DEMs on Domestic issues is a big part of the reason we are in the mess we are in right now.
In my opinion, Romney is everything the GOP needs. He’s charismatic, he’s experienced, he’s respected by the business community, he has a history of working on issues that are usually considered Democratic territory, he’s the last person you’d expect to be involved in any kind of scandal, and he is conservative on all of the major issues.
McCain is likely to be a one-term President, and I want Romney to be the nominee when McCain is done - and the only way I can see to make that gaurenteed is to have him as VP.
We’ll see what happens, Romney may be VP, he may not be - but there is no reason for Romney supporters to stop pushing their guy.
March 11th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
If Mitt ends up as VP, I would also put him in charge of trade re-negotiations, and other ways to uplift the American worker, and campaign like crazy on that. Some states would be particualrly interested in fighting for American jobs, and Mitt would have the know how and trust to make that happen.
March 11th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
This pissed me off. What has happened to our party? In the not to distant future i’m going to take my kids to the Musuem of Natural History and show them extinct exhibits such as the caveman, dinosaurs and the Republican Party.
March 11th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
ACT-Blog,
I don’t disagree that Romney would add certain things to the ticket. But, it seems like his boosters are insisting that all GOP strategy revolve around the best way to get Romney into the White House. If we suggest that Romney might make an excellent GOP chairman, his boosters object because that would harm his political prospects (supposedly). If we suggest that he’d maybe make a good Secretary of Commerce some Romney boosters object, because they feel he needs to act as some sort of leader in exile so that he can run in 2012.
I absolutely think Romney was the most competent and qualified presidential contender in two or three decades, but the political process doesn’t revolve around him. We ought to be working towards the advancement of conservative ideals and looking for men and women who can temporarily be vehicles for those ideals. Temporarily being the key word.
Romney had his chance. If he wants another chance in 2012, no doubt he’ll run again. At that point we can evaluate the world, more or less, in terms of his prospects, if we again decide he’s the best man for the job. Until then, I think we should be looking to advance conservatism by getting McCain elected improving conservative prospects more generally.
Romney can take care of himself in the meanwhile. If he doesn’t want to be GOP chairman, then he’ll reject offers along those lines; if he wants to be VP then he’ll push for the job. If he’s given up on presidential ambitions altogether, then other folks will fill the void; folks that will conservative, competent and yes, awfully qualified (as hard as it might be to believe that anyone else is qualified). We’ll get by ok.
March 11th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
off topic- I had heard that Sean Hannity was going to be interviewing McCain today. I thought it was on his radio show. Did that happen?
March 11th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
No clue, but Romney is on his T.V. show tonight.
March 12th, 2008 at 8:31 am
McCain is on Hannity and Colmes for the full hour Thursday night.
March 18th, 2008 at 6:58 pm
[...] unknown wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerpt[UPDATE II: Marc Ambinder, based off of this same news from AR and SD, says that there is only one seat the Democrats are defending that the GOP is even putting up “a challenge worth calling a challengeâ€? — Louisiana, where Kennedy is … [...]