Reply #140: we need a little more analysis

[iverglas]

I don't think that I'm the one about to do it, but somebody oughta.

There are many imaginable reasons for the NRA endorsing Democratic candidates. One possible reason, which seems quite plain to me, is that doing so allows it (and others) to point at the Democratic candidates in question and say: "See? The NRA endorses Democratic candidates."

I would just have a few questions.

Does the NRA endorse Democratic candidates when doing so is at all likely to influence the outcome in such a way that there is a Democratic majority (or, say, a Democratic governor) where there would not otherwise have been? I'd be surprised.

Does the NRA endorse Democrats when the likely outcome of the election is a Republican majority and nothing short of an electoral tsunami could be expected to produce a different outcome? I'd bet it does.

I would very much doubt that the NRA endorses Democratic candidates who are not likely to win anyway. Except, perhaps, in unusual situations like where there is one of those "Rockefeller Republicans" who does not toe the NRA line (for example, the Republican to whom Sarah Brady has made campaign donations -- was it Michael Castle?) running against a righter-wing anti-firearms control Democrat.

I imagine there must be some reason for the endorsements cited:

NRA endorsements, 2004 (North Carolina)
Governor--Mike Easley, Democrat (endorsed over "A" rated Repub)
Lt. Governor--Beverly Perdue, Democrat
Attorney General--Roy Cooper, Democrat (endorsed over a pro-gun repub)

-- given how 2 of those races, at least, apparently involved Republicans who were quite acceptable to the NRA.

Here are the results of the 2004 NC gubernatorial race:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/elections/2004/nc/

Mike Easley * (D) -- 1,908,268 -- 55%
Patrick J. Ballantine (R) -- 1,480,446 -- 43%
Other -- 51,538 -- 1%

Where I'm at, that outcome looks like a bit of a foregone conclusion: 55-43 isn't exactly close; and the little "*" tells me that Easley was the incumbent. I don't imagine that in the weeks leading up to voting day there was much bated breath among election watchers. From the Post article:

Democratic Gov. Mike Easley is up for re-election this year against former state Sen. Republican Patrick Ballantine of Wilmington. Easley is expected to win his second term.

... It all looked like a recipe for disaster for a Democratic incumbent governor who had never really been embraced by the party establishment. But Easley is now looking a lot stronger than many incumbent governors around the country.

The Democratic Party ... it's a big tent, eh?

So what advantage would there have been for the NRA if it had bet on the obvious losing horse in that race? It's got a Democratic candidate with whom it has no problem and who is virtually certainly going to be elected even if it endorses the other guy. (I don't think even the most die-hard proponent of the theory that the NRA can determine the outcome of elections would suggest that it could reverse a 12-point lead when it has no ammunition to use against the incumbent front-runner.) It can certainly expect to have a great deal more influence with the winner, should it ever need any, if it endorsed him during the campaign. And it (and others) can point to the endorsement and say: "See? The NRA endorses Democrats."

The fine points of NC politics are of course not my forte, but I found this about Hargett, one of the incumbent Democrat state senators endorsed over an NRA-"A" rated Republican:
http://www.seanc.org/site/index.cfm?fuseaction=page&filename=primary.html

In Onslow and Jones counties, Harry Brown, who benefited from SEIU <Service Employees International Union, with which the State Employees Association of North Carolina is in partnership> independent expenditures, defeated incumbent Sen. Cecil Hargett. Hargett also voted to raise employee dependent health care costs, and it ended up costing him his seat.

Labour seems to have supported the Republican. Odd sort of place; odd sort of Democrat? Odd sort of trade union, for all I know, of course.

The only “targeted” legislative race SEANC lost was the one between longtime SEANC member Bev Moore and Sen. Clark Jenkins <another Democrat cited as endorsed by the NRA>, but Moore made a very respectable showing against a strong incumbent.

... SEANC Statement on Gubernatorial Race

“We’re not surprised at the outcome of the governor’s race, but we are, of course, disappointed. In any race for public office, the incumbent always has the advantage. In this case, Gov. Easley had a 2 to 1 corporate funding advantage over his opponent, which he was able to turn into an aggressive television ad campaign. Ballantine simply could not compete financially. ..."

The SEIU seems to be quite politically active in the US:
http://www.blog.rockthevote.com/2004_09_12_archive.html
http://www.wisinfo.com/elections/ele_14705811.shtml

In the run-up to the primary season, Rep. Dick Gephardt had the support of nearly two dozen individual unions. But Dean won the backing of the Service Employees International Union and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, and kept Gephardt from getting the federation’s overall endorsement.

It may be that the SEIU supported Dean because of his anti-firearms control stance, but I kinda doubt that.
http://www.seiu.org/media/press.cfm?ID=1155

Citing the former Vermont governor’s commitment to health care and workers’ rights, the 1.6 million-member Service Employees International Union (SEIU), the largest union of health care workers in the country, today announced that it has endorsed Dr. Howard Dean for President of the United States.

... Nearly a year ago, SEIU’s leaders stated that in order to be considered for the union’s endorsement, candidates had to meet three criteria: 1) they must be publicly committed to workers’ rights; 2) they must offer a written, comprehensive health care plan, including a way to pay for it; and 3) they must demonstrate widespread support among SEIU members.

Okay, so I said I wasn't the one to do the analysis, but there y'are.

In North Carolina, the NRA seems to have endorsed Democrats who were

- obvious winners and held positions not antithetical to the NRA's
AND/OR
- pretty strange Democrats who were opposed by progressive labour organizations

and all I can say is: quelle surprise.


Would you expect NARAL to support a Dem if they weren't pro-choice and their opponent was?

Heh. Shall we ask google for an instance in which an anti-choice Democrat ran against a pro-choice Republican? (I don't think you'd find pro-choice organizations endorsing loonytarians or the like, regardless of their stated position on reproductive rights. And btw, I always find it funny how the NRA doesn't endorse loonytarians either, and yet those Pink Pistols folks do almost exclusively, as I recall.)

Nonetheless, the fact remains that the Democrats the NRA endorsed in NC do *not* seem to have been running against pro-firearms control Republicans. The Democratic endorsements issued by the NRA seem to have been determined by two factors:

- the Democrats were the likely winners
AND/OR
- the Democrats were opposed to various progressive policies

In this instance, I'm seeing the NRA endorsing politicians whose views were consistent with right-wing positions in general and where the endorsement could be expected to provide them with political capital in future.