Why Aren’t Republicans Giving? A Proposed Test

Hugh Hewitt:

Politico's Jeanne Cummings has a story on the dollar gap that is opening between the Dems and Republicans. It is large and growing, and a complete turnaround from the ordinary situation. So, what is going on?

There are three answers.

One of which is that there are too many GOP defeatists:

The problem in the Senate isn't a lack of candidates, it is that some of the candidates are not merely old and uninspiring, some, like Oregon's Gordon Smith, have gone over to the defeatist ranks. Others like Domenici of New Mexico and Warner of Virginia sit on the fence. There is simply no way that even the most committed Republican activists are going to give money to the National Republican Senatorial Committee and see it work for Smith's re-election, or the re-election of other Republicans not committed to victory in Iraq.

The other possibility, of course, is Republican rank and file dissatisfaction with Bush's policies on, well, just about everything and the failure of the GOP Congressional caucuses to break ranks with a failed presidency. Somebody with more energy than I have at the moment could test this by looking at giving patterns on a candidate-by-candidate basis. Who's doing worse compared to historical patterns? The Gordon Smiths or the die-hard Bush loyalists?

Posted on Tuesday, July 24 2007 | Permalink

I’m not an economist or a political scientist, but a first, naive look at the data reveals that, of the Republican Senate candidates up for reelection in 2008, the ones who are doing the best compared to their 2002 campaigns are Thad Cochran, Pat Roberts, James Inhofe, and Susan Collins; worst off are Saxby Chambliss, Pete Domenici, Michael Enzi, and Larry Craig. I scored candidates by dividing their 2007 year-to-date contributions from individuals by their 1/2001-12/2002 individual contributions, which should at least take care of the relative size of each candidate’s state and the fact that we aren’t done with the 2008 campaign season, but I made no effort to control for any other factor (e.g., the strength of opposing candidates in 2002). I pulled all my data from PoliticalMoneyLine (http://www.tray.com).

I’m sure it’s possible to do a more sophisticated analysis and find a better measure of who’s receiving what, but maybe this first stab reveals something. (I confess that I don’t know enough about the relative political alignments of Republican senators to make any judgments.)

Posted by  on  07/25  at  06:28 AM

”....other possibility, of course, is Republican rank and file dissatisfaction with Bush’s policies on, well, just about everything and the failure of the GOP Congressional caucuses to break ranks with a failed presidency.....”

That statement pretty well explains why my wife and me have put away our checkbooks until 2009.

Posted by  on  07/25  at  07:38 AM

Some of us are flying under the radar and donating to Fred Dalton Thompson!!

Posted by  on  07/25  at  08:50 AM

I wouldn’t worry about Gordan Smith’s political position. Every 6 years he turns into a “moderate republican” at least in news paper articles and public appearances. He talks a real progressive line just long enough to get re-elected in Oregon. Then he goes back to working for his real constituencies the LDS Church and the RNC, not necessarily in that order. None of this, of course ever effects his voting record.

Posted by  on  07/25  at  11:32 AM
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.

Next entry: Spitzer = Nixon?

Previous entry: Equal Time

Introduction


Recent Punditry Entries


Hot Topics on Food & Wine

Hot Topics on Law & Business


Punditry RSS Feed

Flickr

Archives

My Books



Blogroll