{Originally posted at my blog Senate Guru.}
If the NRSC had its druthers, the establishment candidate for the Republicans in the upcoming special election for U.S. Senate in Massachusetts would be a former statewide elected official (former Gov. Mitt Romney, former Lt. Gov. Kerry Healey, former Gov. Paul Cellucci), someone with previous prominent governmental experience (former Presidential Chief of Staff Andrew Card, former U.S. Attorney Michael Sullivan), a prominent businessperson who could self-fund (former Carruth Capital president Christopher Egan), or a politically conservative celebrity (retired Red Sox pitcher Curt Schilling). It looks like none of these will be represented in the Republican establishment candidate.
It appears that the GOP establishment is coalescing around Republican state sen. Scott Brown. Andrew Card even endorsed Brown as he announced that he would not be a candidate. The only other Republicans to have expressed interest are Bob Burr, a Selectman from the town of Canton, Massachusetts’ 85th most populous municipality, and Jack E. Robinson, who almost finished third (barely a percentage point ahead of the Libertarian candidate) in the 2000 U.S. Senate race. So, barring a surprise candidacy, Scott Brown will be the Republican nominee.
Brown is one of only five Republican state senators in the forty-person body (to go along with only 19 Republicans in the 160-person body). One could look at that and say that a Republican has no shot in overwhelmingly Democratic Massachusetts. Another could look at that and say that Brown wins where other Republicans might not.
Which is the correct way to look at it? Let’s ask the National Republican Senatorial Committee. Should anybody in Massachusetts think that Brown has even an outside chance to win? Well, if the NRSC – the Republican campaign committee whose sole focus is electing Republicans to the U.S. Senate (i.e. they who should be Brown’s biggest cheerleader) – publicly commits to ponying up serious cash for the special election (serious being at least $1 million), then Republicans and right-leaning independents can at least take heart that Washington D.C. is taking this race seriously. However, if the NRSC will not publicly commit to spending a cool million or more in Massachusetts in support of Brown’s candidacy, that means that they’re writing it off. If the Republican campaign committee whose sole focus is electing Republicans to the U.S. Senate writes Brown off, why shouldn’t Massachusetts voters write Brown off?
So, ladies and gents of the NRSC, which is it? A public commitment to spending serious dough in Massachusetts, or writing off the race altogether? (At the very least, maybe the NRSC can hook Brown up with a better graphic designer.)
I wouldn’t spend NRSC resources on what is almost certainly an unwinnable race.
Brown, if he gets the nomination, still has a shot at what we might call the “dumb money” from the real grassroots. Actually that’s not fair, because his grassroots money could come not only from those genuinely too stupid to know that the race is hopeless but from those who don’t care. I’ve been part of the Democratic “dumb money” on occasion, donating to pretty hopeless races out of disgust at the opponent. There’s some rational case for a GOP zealot to donate to Brown if he’s the nominee — the less thoroughly he is beaten, the more likely it is that a more plausible candidate (even a better-known Brown) might emerge to challenge Senator Capuano/Coakley/Lynch in 2010.
<
p>The dumbest of the GOP dumb money, of course, donates through the organizations that keep 90+% of the donations. They specialize in hopeless races with sentimental value to “dumb money” donors.
It depends on how arrogant the NRSC. Basically the group gave up a few months ago at recapturing the body, but now with national anger over healthcare reform and state spending they might be able to tap into the Glenn Beck block of viewers and get a sizeable amount of money. I am unsure how many MA residents have grassroots anger at the President.
<
p>Also they can spend money in this race they have and use it to test out campaign themes and ads. They will be making the bulk of the money they need for 2010 in 2010 so it might be worth it to test a plethora of generic anti-Obama strategies in this race. Now will that translate to victory? I doubt it. But if MA independents are similar to national ones (I don’t think they necessarily are) then they could be angry at Obama over healthcare and the bailouts and they might use Scott Brown to express that anger. Again I don’t see that translating into victory. But he might cross the 40% threshold, especially because none of the Democratic candidates are household names like Ted Kennedy was.
<
p>Ted would have lost his seat to Romney if he hadn’t been a Kennedy with 40 years in the Senate to give him clout. I suspect any other Dem incumbent would have lost, even in MA, in 1994 just because of the anger. Whether 2009 is the new 1994 is the question the NRSC needs to ask itself. I suspect its not. But I think you’ll see them use this race more as a testing ground for ideas, strategies, and ads and less as a chance to pick up a seat.
<
p>I think Brown v Coakley will be a rout. Brown v Capuano or Brown v Lynch could get far more interesting.
<
p>