Thread: GOP a little cash-strapped?

The Republican National Committee is entering the fall election season with dire financial problems and, to an unprecedented degree, will be forced to rely upon outside groups to fund activities traditionally paid for by the national party.

While embattled RNC Chairman Michael Steele and a top aide sought to use the party’s summer meeting here to publicly put the best face on the cash shortage, behind the scenes senior Republicans expressed grave concern that their fundraising deficiencies may be the difference between a good election year and a great one.

With $11 million on hand as of the end of June—and about $2 million in reported debt—the RNC’s paid get-out-the-vote (GOTV) effort will be limited to just targeted House races, POLITICO has learned.

Source: POLITICO

This really interested me; how much of an effect will this limited budget have on the massive GOP gains expected this november; with the Senate apparently not being the focus; a change there is unlikely. Similarly, the House has such a huge majority that it'd take quite a lot to take the house back, something the Republicans probably won't be able to do on a $10m budget.

Thoughts?

I just lowered the expectation for Dems to lose House & Senate seats this November. The GOP is unraveling before our eyes!........Cya Fellas!!
(a party built exclusively on stunts, lies & obstructionism never had much of a future anyway)

Originally Posted by Jardines

Source: POLITICO

This really interested me; how much of an effect will this limited budget have on the massive GOP gains expected this november; with the Senate apparently not being the focus; a change there is unlikely. Similarly, the House has such a huge majority that it'd take quite a lot to take the house back, something the Republicans probably won't be able to do on a $10m budget.

Thoughts?

It may not hurt them as badly as some think. Most elections in the House and Senate are essentially "local", meaning that individual fundraising efforts by candidates, and the issues they present in ads and interviews in their districts or regions will more determine the outcome than some generic "get out the vote" ads, or limited, targeted ads by the national committees.

Of course, those national committees can send money to individual candidates as well, and if the GOP is short on cash it may hurt some races, but like the article said, it will be the difference between a good election year and a great one. In other words, Republican candidates may lose some close elections, where an infusion of Dem money and a lack of GOP cash make the difference. But I don't think there are a whole lot of those kinds of races out there right now. I can only think of two or three - Reid/Angle in Nevada, and Kirk/Giannoulias in Illinois come immediately to mind.

Also, it's a still long way to election day. A major gaffe, hell a minor gaffe at the wrong time by one or the other of these candidates could turn the tide, and no amount of cash infused could necessarily help. We'll just have to wait and see, I think.

If the SCOTUS is right & money is free speech......The GOP just lost its voice!

Great news for America!!

Originally Posted by NiteGuy

It may not hurt them as badly as some think. Most elections in the House and Senate are essentially "local", meaning that individual fundraising efforts by candidates, and the issues they present in ads and interviews in their districts or regions will more determine the outcome than some generic "get out the vote" ads, or limited, targeted ads by the national committees.

Of course, those national committees can send money to individual candidates as well, and if the GOP is short on cash it may hurt some races, but like the article said, it will be the difference between a good election year and a great one. In other words, Republican candidates may lose some close elections, where an infusion of Dem money and a lack of GOP cash make the difference. But I don't think there are a whole lot of those kinds of races out there right now. I can only think of two or three - Reid/Angle in Nevada, and Kirk/Giannoulias in Illinois come immediately to mind.

Also, it's a still long way to election day. A major gaffe, hell a minor gaffe at the wrong time by one or the other of these candidates could turn the tide, and no amount of cash infused could necessarily help. We'll just have to wait and see, I think.

I agree in part but would make this distinction. House races are essentially local and can substitute a vigorous grassroots effort for funding to some degree. Senate races are statewide with greater costs particularly, in advertising, so a funding crunch would hurt more there.