There is nothing like 4 votes for "Allahpundit" to make the political establishment take notice.

I was SERIOUSLY thinking the same thing.

What, you're not voting for John? Don't you know it is the national party's fault that he is doing so poorly?

Yes, I heard. I can't believe they didn't give him that 20 million he swore they would (back when they only had 18mil in their coffers, mind you).

I can't keep trashing him, he's going to go down in his blazing defeat tomorrow anyway, but wow. WOW. Eye-roll.

For all the mistakes Dole has made at the NRSC, giving Spencer money would have pretty much been an impeachable, unforgivable offense.

Notwithstanding the disingenuousness of the Pataki shill's self-serving complaint, the criticism is valid.

Re-electing Dewine-not to mention, attempting to foist Chafee down the collective throat of RI voters-is just as hopeless a cause, and yet that hasn't prevented the RNC from throwing millions of dollars down the figurative toilet bowls that serve as GOP campaigns in those states.

Regardless of the merits of a Spencer candidacy holding HRC below her winning percentage in 2000-and preemptively nullifying the claim that she somehow enjoys widespread popularity-is arguably a much better allocation of resources than spending millions of dollars on two otherwise forgettable races.

Hey you stole my stichk from the 2000 NY senate race where I wrote myself in rather than choose between Rick or Hillary.

Not sure I agree with that. I don't care about (in this case) scoring rhetorical debating points about what % HRC gets this year, I care about winning seats. Spencer did nothing to suggest, no matter how much money national sent, that he could win this seat.

RCP averages have DeWine down 8 and Chafee down 5; Spencer's down, what, 35? It looks like we'll lose both those seats, but it was definitely better to spend money there then to throw it down the drain in NY.

In theory the concept of only spending money on races that you can plausibly win makes sense.

The only problem is that if you take this strategy to its logical extreme you wind up mired in the permanent minority.

People don't seem to realize that there used to actually be relatively competitive elections in this city and state.

A Republican represented the Silk Stocking District up until 1993. There were even Republican officeholders in The Bronx, believe it or not. When William F. Buckley Jr. ran for mayor of New York City in 1965 he garnered nearly fourteen percent of the vote.

Think about it.

Now Long Island-in its entirety-is a blue lagoon. I wouldn't be surprised if they stop funding races in Westchester and Rockland by the time the next presidential election rolls around.

My point being that embracing a self-defeating attitude only ensures disappointment and further and deeper retrenchment.

I'm not suggesting that you throw good money after bad-or invest vast quantities of time and energy into hopeless causes-but the idea that you mitigate your losses by continually retreating is misguided, to say the least.

How would it have been throwing it down the drain?

A loss is a loss.

And it's not about rhetoric, but facts on the ground.

The media is already using the Hillary landslide template in order to cast her inicipient presidential campaign as a fait accompli.

Dick Morris made this point a few weeks ago, and it bears repeating.

Holding her at or below her initial election vote totals would have been a devastating psychological defeat for her, and probably spelled the end of her presidential ambitions.

Spending money on losing campaigns that will have minimal impact in the long term is a waste of resources.

Investing that same money in a tangible goal of bleeding someone who is in all likelihood the next Dem. presidential nominee, on the other hand, is something that the RNC and NRSC should have been doing for the past two years, at the very least.

"The media is already using the Hillary landslide template in order to cast her inicipient presidential campaign as a fait accompli."

Well, Gerard, I mean, she would make a "tremendous candidate", right? :-)

Following the strategy of spending money where we can win this year might be the only thing keeping us from being the minority this year.

We have a three term governor, control of one half the state house, and access to some of the deepest pockets for political contributions in the country. The onus isn't on the NRSC to come in and make us competitive; the onus is on us to make ourselves competitive to begin with. Pataki, et al. has done a terrible job transitioning/positioning the party for the post-Pataki era. Again, that is our local responsibility.

I have been very tough on the NRSC. From candidate recruitment to fundraising (out raised $78 to $104 million), I think Dole hasn't done a good job, and if we lose the senate she will bear a lot of the blame. Their goal, though, is to elect Republican senators this year, not to set things up better against likely '08 presidential nominees. If given the choice of Spencer losing by 30 and (to pick the worst of the Republicans) Chafee just squeaking in, or Spencer and Chafee each losing by between 10 and 15, I'm going to pick Chafee (especially this year).

If they were awash in cash, or were trying to push us from 55 to 57 seats or something, I might be more open to the criticism about abandoning New York. But we are literally looking at the prospect of a lost senate this year, never mind '08. Likewise, if Spencer had pulled together even $15 million or something (versus Clinton's $38 million), had moved to within 20 points, something, then maybe I could see throwing a little money here. But he did nothing in terms of either organization (raised less than $5 million) or polls to deserve it.

Rob is right on the money. Mrs. Dole has been a disaster. What bothers me is, on paper, this should have been a promising year in some races. Nelson, Byrd, the other Nelson, Cantwell, Stabenow were not the most vulnerable Dems but you could have found decent candidates (like say Tom Osborn in NE as opposed to heading to a gubenatorial crash up) to make the Dems spend money. Dole and her team simply did not do that. Now Dem money that could have spent keeping some senators safe is directed to toss up races or races that nobody could see as close a year ago (like VA). D

That's so odd, I just came here with the intent purpose of finding out who you were going to write in in that race.

Allahpundit it is, then. I just hope people don't think it's some sort of Islamist code word...

It's not too late for "Karol Sheinin"? :)

Haha, nah, Allahpundit is such a better option. If we can even get like 50 votes for him, that would be cool.

If you guys know a dead person I can show up as, I'll come down and vote Allah.

How the hell does one do writein candidates on those damned lever machines?

If I can figure out how to do it, I'm in.

Has Allahpundit trademarked that name?

"Has Allahpundit trademarked that name?"

That's an interesting question.

You would assume so.

Anyway, my point is not that Liddy Dole should be steering money towards unwinnable races-or that Spencer should expect millions of dollars in funding-but that the perspective should be somewhat broader.

Lazio received somewhere on the order of four out of ten votes cast in that Senate race, and there's absolutely no reason to think that Spencer-or any other Republican nominated for this seat-couldn't have at the very least replicated that performance, since ninety percent-if not more-of that vote consisted almost exclusively of anti-Hillary votes, rather than an affirmative vote for the GOP candidate.

The NRSC also isn't supposed to actively intervene to choose sides in contested Republican primaries, and yet that didn't prevent it from slandering Laffey endlessly.

If it isn't too late to change your mind, I'd go with Jack Bauer.

#1 priority: enact more pro-torture legislation.

See, now that would be a great candidate.

To replicate 2000, especially given the broader GOP headwinds this year and all the positive local press coverage Clinton has gotten since, you'd have to at least try to put in as much effort/resources as you did then.

In 2000, Rick Lazio raised $39 million (92% from individuals), vs. Clinton's $42 million. Also, don't forget that Giuliani raised over $23 million that year as well, some of which hurt Clinton. This time, Clinton again raised a ton ($38 million), but Spencer only brought in $4.7 million. To be blunt, he didn't do his part.

I don't want to belabor this, but I also don't want those in the state party who are responsible for the disaster this year to be able to get away with "Washington abandoned us" as an excuse. If we let them get away with that, then we are setting ourselves up for the permanent minority status that Gerard is worried about (as am I).

No, I agree with that sentiment.

It's just aggravating that the national Republican Party seems content to let Her Shrillness skate to re-election in a race that will serve as the launching pad for her presidential campaign.

To the extent that state Republicans are culpable for this imminent debacle-and they should shoulder most of the blame-they should be criticized.

I just think that viewing Senator Clinton's re-election as a regional or isolated contest was a mistake on their part.