OfA already starting to waste its ad budget?

So I hear that OfA (they’re Organizing for Action this nanosecond, right?) has decided that they felt like spending “close to six figures” in online ad buys to try to convince the following legislators to go along with the President’s vaguely plotted-out prelude to gun-grabbing:

Susan Collins
Kelly Ayotte
Patrick Meehan
David Valadao
Bill Young
Erik Paulsen
Jim Gerlach
Michael G Fitzpatrick
Buck McKeon
Gary Miller
David Joyce
Jeff Denham
John Kline
Daniel Webster
Robert Pittenger
Barack Obama
Mike Coffman

…Oh, dear.  I somehow managed to include the name of the President himself in that list.  I wonder why I did that?

Susan Collins 62%
Kelly Ayotte 60%
Patrick Meehan 60%
David Valadao 59%
Bill Young 58%
Erik Paulsen 58%
Jim Gerlach 57%
Michael G Fitzpatrick 57%
Buck McKeon 56%
Gary Miller 55%
David Joyce 54%
Jeff Denham 54%
John Kline 54%
Daniel Webster 52%
Robert Pittenger 52%
Barack Obama 51%
Mike Coffman 49%

Oh, right, because I had looked up all the popular vote percentages (rounding up) from the last election of each candidate being targeted, and was using Barack Obama’s 51%  in 2012 as a baseline.  Although ‘baseline’ may not exactly be the right term, in this context; it’s practically the floor.  Judging from that list, Rep. Coffman may or may not have to sweat a vote on background checks; but I somehow suspect that OfA isn’t going to otherwise particularly get any bang for its buck.

Not that it needs to.  OfA has always been about fueling the ego of Barack Obama; and now that he has won re-election… well, if you want to believe that OfA is now a bunch of ninja grassroots activists prepared to sweep the Right’s leg that’s your privilege.  Can’t say that I’m too impressed with their ability to move the Democratic downticket, though.

4 thoughts on “OfA already starting to waste its ad budget?”

  1. As OfA leaches money from more traditional Dem fundraising groups (DNCC, DNSC, etc.) I, for one, welcome their bumbling incompetence.
    I would, however, point out that *something* on the Dem side worked for Obama .. and *NOTHING* on the GOP side worked for Romney so .. while they may not be ninjas, they don’t have to be… they just had to be better than our couch-potatoes.

  2. I would really like a race by race breakdown of the failed R Senate races last year as to why they failed. There are the obvious ones (Akin), but why did so many of the candidates (and even ones that wound up winning) underperform Romney? Were the candidates we put up just uniformly bad, or bad at campaigning?

    1. Here is my take. With Democrats, you know you are going to get a career politician or some retread hack. That’s a given. No Democrat voter cares as long as the candidates promises to vote the right way. Even if they take trips abroad to have sex with underage prostitutes or have sex with an intern, or have a boyfriend running a whorehouse out of their home in DC, or steal campaign money to buy furs.

      With Republicans, voters expect better. We expect someone who has made it in the private sector, or is a leader in their career field, or at least can make a compelling case for conservatism. When we put up retreads (Allen) or people who are unprepared (Akin), or self-funders that make everyone bite their lip (McMahon), we get what we get. Losses.

      When we fight for people who are intelligent and articulate Rubio) or successful and honest (Rob Johnson), we get victories and rising stars.

      So, two points. First, Democrats have successfully lowered the bar for their candidates to a point that anyone on the planet could run. Second, like the old football coach said – it ain’t about the X’s and O’s, it’s about the Jimmys and Joes.

  3. Pingback: ConMom

Comments are closed.