Conservatives Blame GOP Betrayal for Cuccinelli's Loss

It is not our party but the party leaders who are against us. We need to dump them ASAP.

These commies best find a deep, deep hole to crawl into because when the patriot storm descends on them not many leftists will survive.

Great idea! Going to copy you!

It’s interesting to read the debates on DU about the “50 state” strategy. The idea of contesting everywhere, even if it seems to be unwinnable was in interesting one; it forces the other party to fight everywhere and there is always a chance that the other candidate in even an apparently unwinnable election blows up somehow.

It’s also the EXACT same debate on FR and DU : do we go with a DNC/RINO or a true ideolog. It’s been going on as long as factions have vied for elections- the person with a greater chance of winning or the person whose values match yours. I think it’s why Reagan is so revered, as is FDR for the Democrats.

I do not like either the 50 state strategy used by the DNC or the targeted strategy currently employed by the NRC.

I think if you have a good candidate, you fund them well enough to get the message out. If the candidate is an inarticulate boob like Hoffman in NY 23, you don’t fund that candidate.

Basically, my theory is you can lose an election with a good candidate with a lack of money and that should never happen.

But if your candidate is really good, he needs just enough to compete and he will still win even if outspent by a large margin.

My theory is just fund well spoken candidates without skeletons in the closet who are of good character and the winning and losing will take care of itself.

Oh and thanks for making a post that is not “f the rinos” or “f the (fill in the blank with the person of your choice)” post.

You’re welcome.

It’s always an interesting debate (and again, the same ideas and often language on left and right) - is a ‘RINO’ better or worse than a Democrat? Which can actually do more damage? Hillary is *LOATHED* by a lot of Democrats who will vote for her if she wins the nomination, believe me; my Dem friends are Grayson and Warren fans- but some would rather have a President Cruz than Hillary since it would be much easier to rally opposition.

Here is the deal. All the polling indicated that any money put into this race would have been wasted. Turns out the poll may have been wrong, but for the most part, money goes where the polls indicate a winnable race and that was not the case here.

Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding. We have a winner! Cuccinelli was down double digits. If McDonnell had been down double digits, would the RNC have thrown $9m into the race? No need to guess what McDonnell's poll numbers were:

Polling Data

Poll	Date	Sample	McDonnell (R)	Deeds (D)	Spread
Final Results	--	--	58.7	41.2	McDonnell +17.5
RCP Average	10/26 - 11/1	--	54.6	41.2	McDonnell +13.4
SurveyUSA	10/30 - 11/1	574 LV	58	40	McDonnell +18
PPP (D)	10/31 - 11/1	1457 LV	56	42	McDonnell +14
Times-Dispatch/MD	10/28 - 10/29	625 LV	53	41	McDonnell +12
Rasmussen Reports	10/27 - 10/27	1000 LV	54	41	McDonnell +13
Daily Kos/R2000	10/26 - 10/28	600 LV	54	44	McDonnell +10
Suffolk University	10/26 - 10/28	400 LV	54	40	McDonnell +14
SurveyUSA	10/25 - 10/26	502 LV	58	41	McDonnell +17
Roanoke College	10/21 - 10/27	569 LV	53	36	McDonnell +17
PPP (D)	10/23 - 10/26	729 LV	55	40	McDonnell +15
Washington Post	10/22 - 10/25	1206 LV	55	44	McDonnell +11
VCU	10/21 - 10/25	625 LV	54	36	McDonnell +18
SurveyUSA	10/17 - 10/19	595 LV	59	40	McDonnell +19
Clarus Research	10/18 - 10/19	605 LV	49	41	McDonnell +8
PPP (D)	10/16 - 10/19	666 LV	52	40	McDonnell +12
Rasmussen Reports	10/12 - 10/12	750 LV	50	43	McDonnell +7
Virginian-Pilot/CNU	10/8 - 10/13	506 LV	45	31	McDonnell +14
Times-Dispatch/MD	10/6 - 10/8	625 LV	48	40	McDonnell +8
Washington Post	10/5 - 10/7	1001 LV	53	44	McDonnell +9
SurveyUSA	10/2 - 10/4	608 LV	54	43	McDonnell +11
Rasmussen Reports	9/29 - 9/29	500 LV	51	42	McDonnell +9
SurveyUSA	9/26 - 9/29	631 LV	55	41	McDonnell +14
PPP (D)	9/25 - 9/28	576 LV	48	43	McDonnell +5
InsiderAdvantage	9/23 - 9/23	602 RV	48	44	McDonnell +4
Washington Post	9/14 - 9/17	1003 LV	51	47	McDonnell +4
Rasmussen Reports	9/16 - 9/16	500 LV	48	46	McDonnell +2
Daily Kos/R2000	9/14 - 9/16	600 LV	50	43	McDonnell +7
Clarus Research	9/10 - 9/14	600 RV	42	37	McDonnell +5
SurveyUSA	9/1 - 9/3	611 LV	54	42	McDonnell +12
Rasmussen Reports	9/1 - 9/1	500 LV	51	42	McDonnell +9
PPP (D)	8/28 - 8/31	596 LV	49	42	McDonnell +7
Washington Post	8/11 - 8/14	LV	54	39	McDonnell +15
Rasmussen Reports	8/10 - 8/10	500 LV	49	41	McDonnell +8
Daily Kos/R2000	8/3 - 8/5	600 LV	51	43	McDonnell +8
PPP (D)	7/31 - 8/3	579 LV	51	37	McDonnell +14
SurveyUSA	7/27 - 7/28	526 LV	55	40	McDonnell +15
Rasmussen Reports	7/14 - 7/14	500 LV	44	41	McDonnell +3
PPP (D)	6/30 - 7/2	617 LV	49	43	McDonnell +6
Daily Kos/R2000	6/15 - 6/17	600 LV	45	44	McDonnell +1
Rasmussen	6/10 - 6/10	500 LV	41	47	Deeds +6
SurveyUSA	6/5 - 6/7	1685 RV	47	43	McDonnell +4
Daily Kos/R2000	6/1 - 6/3	600 LV	46	34	McDonnell +12
SurveyUSA	5/31 - 6/2	1701 RV	44	43	McDonnell +1
Daily Kos/R2000	5/18 - 5/20	600 LV	45	32	McDonnell +13
SurveyUSA	5/17 - 5/19	1692 RV	46	40	McDonnell +6
SurveyUSA	4/25 - 4/27	1396 RV	44	39	McDonnell +5
Rasmussen Reports	4/15 - 4/15	500 LV	45	30	McDonnell +15
Daily Kos/R2000	4/6 - 4/8	600 LV	38	31	McDonnell +7
Rasmussen Reports	2/4 - 2/4	500 LV	39	30	McDonnell +9
Rasmussen Reports	12/4 - 12/4	500 LV	39	39	Tie

(After October 18 partisan affiliated polls will not be added to Election 2009 RCP Poll Averages.)

So if a conservative is down in the poles the RNC pulls out. If a RINO is down in the polls the RNC spends more money. I get it.

So if a conservative is down in the poles the RNC pulls out. If a RINO is down in the polls the RNC spends more money. I get it.

If you examine the table I provided above, it should be clear that Bob McDonnell was almost never down in the polls, let alone by double digits. Do you recall a specific instance where a RINO was down double digits and the RNC threw good money after bad? Note that McAuliffe wasn't personally a zillionaire, but as former head of the DNC and someone tight with the Clintons, he had the contacts and political resources of a zillionaire. If the RNC had matched McAuliffe dollar for dollar, it would have had far less money to assist in other less expensive races around the country.

Ok, why didn’t RNC money get pulled from NJ and sent to VA? Are you REALLY defending the RNC? Really?

The RinoNC, the MSM and the Donkeys are all enemies of conservatism. So which side are you on?

Ok, why didn’t RNC money get pulled from NJ and sent to VA? Are you REALLY defending the RNC? Really?

The RNC can defend itself. They certainly have enough paid flacks on the payroll. I am merely pointing out that Cuccinelli, while overall a good guy, may be the kind of guy who blames everyone but himself for his defeats. It's not the worst character defect ever, but it means his beatification is a little premature.

I live here, the unanswered personal McAllSlime TV radio onslaught all summer and fall was hard to take. On general principles the RNC should have stepped in. It made the Republican brand look TOTALLY ineffective. It WAS a money issue. There will be bad coattails from this misguided and shameful RNC tactic. It really woke me up to the RNC, I knew it was bad but not HOW bad it really was and still is. The RNC IS THE ENEMY too.

It was a real heartbreaker, and I was following the returns right up to the point the Cuccinelli started falling behind. Stuff happens. Here's the RNC's defense - that Steele spent a ton of unnecessary money on McDonnell's 2009 race that put the RNC in hock until 2011. Look at Steele's resume, I'd guess that being from Maryland, he chose to spend more money on candidates in his home region who would be in a position to help him out once he was done with politics. Hence the $9m on McDonnell and $3m for Christie in 2009 (whose media market is ranked #1 in cost compared to DC's #9).

Republican National Committee allies are offering an interesting defense to critics saying the campaign committee could have done more to help the Virginia gubernatorial candidate Ken Cuccinelli: Blame former RNC chairman Michael Steele.
Steele dropped a staggering $9 million in 2009 into Governor Bob McDonnell’s race despite the fact that McDonnell never trailed in a single poll.
“In my opinion, it was just frivolous spending,” says a Republican source close to the campaign in Virginia. “We were paying off that race in 2011 when we should have been getting ready for the presidential,” the source says. “It handcuffed us.”
Contrast the $9 million figure with the 2005 Virginia’s governors race, when the RNC spent $1.1 million to help Jerry Kilgore, who lost to Democrat Tim Kaine by about six points.
Another data point is the New Jersey gubernatorial race in 2009, when the RNC spent around $3 million to help now-governor Chris Christie — about the same amount it spent on Cuccinelli, but in a more expensive state.