To those conservatives who confidently predicted that the shenanigans of the Repubs in MS would lead to their defeat in that Senate race, I'll point out that RCP has Cochran (R) with about a 29% lead in the latest polls. As to that strategy's larger value, Jonah Goldberg had this to say today:Chuck Todd made the point that the pivotal moment in this election cycle was Chris McDaniel’s failure to wrest the GOP nomination from Mississippi senator Thad Cochran. According to Todd, that saved the entire Republican field from being forced to answer for everything McDaniel said and all of the skeletons in his closet (this only happened a few minutes ago, so I don’t have exact quotes). In short, McDaniel would have been this cycle’s Todd Akin, dragging down the whole party.If today's election gives the Repubs control of the Senate, it's a big win for the pragmatists over the purists. And anyone who says "so what?" is forgetting about stuff like potential SCOTUS vacancies.
Todd is full of shit. McDaniel is not Akin. Akin BTW was a tool that the Democrats promoted during the primaries to hamstring the GOP in Missouri. Akin then refused to step down and let a better candidate take his place when he went toxic. Had McDaniel been the nominee in Mississippi he would have won too (and by likely a bigger margin than Cochran). Kansas (and North Carolina) show how going with the "safe" establishment candidate can backfire. The GOP would have been stronger with a more conservative candidate in both those states. But I temper that hypothetical with a conservative who is not perceived as too conservative or out of step with the majority of voters. It goes back to William F. Buckley's advice, go with the most conservative candidate who can win. The GOP did great with Gardner and Ernst for example (I suspect they will win, but even if they don't they were excellent candidates).
The point of Jonah's article is that the media would've made McDaniel into another Akin. It's not a matter of what's true, or what's fair--it's a matter of dealing realistically w/ a biased MSM. The Dems' only hope this fall was maxing black turnout. You've seen how they;ve tried to use Ferguson. Now try to imagine what they'd have been able to do by tying the Repubs to the KKK.
That is not really the point of Jonah's article. Jonah is just reporting what was said on Morning Joe (which I completely discount as wishful thinking). I am unaware of any "skeletons" in McDaniel's closet, other than a complete and utter loathing of anything to do with Haley Barbour. I do not believe McDaniel is a racist or that the Dem machine could have successfully painted him as one.
You apparently haven't read Jonah's article all the way to the end. It's not about whether or not McDaniel could've won MS. Any Repub w/o a murder conviction could win in MS.The point is how the MSM could've used the unsavory aspects of one or more McDaniel supporters to smear the GOP in swing states. The fact that some people were nuts enough to claim that Cochran would actually lose in MS is just evidence of how far off their thinking was.Just look at the states where the outcome is in suspense: AK, CO, GA, IA, KS, NC, and NH. Do you really think they'd be leaning more Repub if the MSM had spotlighted McDaniel all fall? I don't.If the GOP wins the Senate, the NRSC's strategy in MS will be vindicated.
Er, Cochran's polling lead is 16%, not 29%. Read the wrong column.Still, Nate Silver rates Cochran's win probability at >99%.
Shaheen's involvement is old news for those paying attention at the time (BOLO ring a bell?), but it's good to remind people.
I had to stop Anonymous comments due to spam. But I welcome all legitimate comments. Thanks.