“This campaign cycle, the NRA has endorsed 61 Democratic and 197 Republican House candidates, as well as 23 GOP and two Democratic Senate candidates.”
This analysis does not tell the entire story. The NRA supported blue dog incumbents in close races over pro gun conservative Republicans. Sure they supported more Republicans, but who cares, they were in mostly non-competitive races. So, for example the NRA supported pro-gun Republican incumbent against the challenger Dem or NRA supported a challenger Republican against a Leftist anti-gun Dem in a deep blue district. These races were not close.
The real action is at the leadership level. These guys are following the party line when the close votes are needed. Just ask the “pro life” Dems.
These posts illustrate that the NRA has permanently damaged their brand with conservatives and it will be difficult to repair. A first step might be to get rid of the leadership at the NRA that went along with this strategy. Otherwise, the NRA can try to find support in San Francisco, upper east side Manhattan and Cambridge MA. Good luck with that.
Why were the Democratic candidates blue dogs anyway?
Because they were in close races and carried a pro-gun record.
Correlation does not imply causation.
Why can’t you just quit the NRA bashing, be happy that you have your 100% Republican-only GOA, and leave the NRA to those of us who actually want to influence policy in Washington?
+1... Well said, if the NRA leadership is replaced, I would consider throwing support back behind the group, until then there are some other good players out there.
Second Amendment Foundation (SAF)