So Who's Telling Truth -- Karl Rove Or Ken Mehlman?
So how much is the GOP really going to spend between now and election day in a last-ditch effort to prevent their majority from slipping away? And which party -- the GOP or the Dems -- is going to spend more in the home stretch? Depends on which Republican official is doing the talking. The ever-supremely-confident Karl Rove told the Washington Times on Wednesday that the GOP's huge financial advantage will enable the party to carry the day. But in today's New York Times, RNC chair Ken Mehlman is quoted saying that the Dems will "outspend" the GOP. Who's telling the truth? More after the jump.
From Wednesday's Washington Times:
But Mr. Rove said Republican candidates still hold a huge cash edge over Democrats, which will give them clout in the final three weeks of the campaign...."For most Americans, particularly the marginal voters who are going to determine the outcome of the election, it started a couple weeks ago," he said. "Between now and the election, we will spend $100 million in target House and Senate races in the next 21 days."
Now check this out from today's New York Times:
"September was the best financial month we’ve had this cycle,” Ken Mehlman, the Republican chairman, said in an interview Thursday evening. “But they are going to outspend us. That’s the whole reason why it is so important to build the turnout operation.”
So which version is the right one? It's all so confusing sometimes.
Rove claims the GOP's going to spend more than $100 million between now and election day. Is this possible? According to the Times, the GOP's three committees have a total of $77.2 million in cash on hand. So factoring in the individual campaigns' budgets and third party groups, the figure isn't really out of reach.
On the other hand, Rove's swaggering claims of a huge cash advantage are ringing pretty hollow now that we've seen Dem numbers. The Dems' three committees have $67.3 million on hand, only a $10 million disadvantage. As Election Central reported the other day, it's true that the majority of GOP candidates have more money than their Dem opponents. But those differences are dwarfed by the massive amounts the committees hold.
So Rove's claim of a "huge" financial advantage just sounds like empty bravado. Just ask Ken Mehlman.
The issue isn't just how much you have but where you spend it. Wooldridge and Mickklethwait noted this in the best book on modern party politics, The Right Nation (don't be misled by the title, it's quite non-partisan and richly repays reading). In the 2004 election the Dems focused on their core urban and union bases. Two problems with that: one, if you're a Dem and you've already lost Chicago, you're toast. If that's even in play, forget about it. Two, those areas are full of historically low-turnout groups-- blacks, Latinos, etc.
Where Rove focused on exurbs-- all those fast-growing burbs popping up on farmland next to Home Depots and Wal-Marts. Population is growing there, people have almost universal home ownership which correlates with voter turnout, and they're in a new area and thus more likely to make changes in party ID without feeling societal pressure to stick with tradition and their neighbors. Now, you can rag on these exurbs as soulless hellholes all you want, but Willie Sutton robbed banks because that's where the money was and Karl Rove targeted exurbs because that's where the voters were-- and his money went further and accomplished more as a result.
October 20, 2006 10:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think you are overstating the importance of this apparent contradiction. I am sure that Mehlman's comment was rhetoric aimed at spurring people to get out the vote. It's kind of like when they interview an athlete after a victory and he says, "Everyone doubted us, no one thought we could do it." Of course, he knows of no one who doubted him; he's just reacting to a common tactic used by a coach to fire up the team. Here, Mehlman is the coach.
October 20, 2006 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is like the old brain teaser. The only way to find the real answer is to ask one what the other would say. Of course, in that riddle, one always tells the truth, whereas these guys are both pathological liars.
October 20, 2006 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is no difference between the GOP and some of the best-funded, pro-Republican 527's. If you head on over to opensecrets.org, you'll find many of Rove's friends and former associates (as well as many of Abramoff's associates) on the boards of these 527s. Karl Rove probably includes the 527s in his big-picture thinking while the Mehlman quote was only in reference to the RNC's efforts. Karl said "we" will spend $100 million and was probably referring to all the resources available to the GOP.
Here in Indiana's hotly-contested 9th, we're seeing the same guy who funded the swift boat campaign against John Kerry (Bob Perry - a "close friend of Karl Rove") going after Baron Hill - the Democratic challenger to Sodrel.
October 20, 2006 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bush and Karl Rove are reported as almost giddily optimistic about keeping control of both the House and Senate. Have Diebolt, ES&S, and local state secretaries assured them that again they will do "whatever it takes" to get a Republican Congress elected again?
Why are the Democrats ignoring the situation of the past three, rigged elections. Do they expect it to be different this time?
October 20, 2006 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
.
"So Who's Telling the Truth -- Karl Rove or Ken Mehlman?"
Well, that's a trick question, right? Obviously they're both lying. (As the old joke goes: you can tell when they're lying; their lips are moving!) But they are each lying for different reasons.
Mehlman is lying to keep his ground troops motivated (as DH noted, below -- he's like a coach).
Rove is lying to lay the predicate for winning the election. Of course, to actually win they will have to cheat. The key here is that they have to give the clueless press some way(s) to explain the unexplainable. So they chat up their money advantage, and their get-out-the-vote machine.
I share your fears, Christie. I think we're looking at a strong possibility of a rigged election (AGAIN!). There is no reason to believe that they can't cheat, because they've done it before. There is certainly no reason to believe they won't cheat, because the stakes are higher than ever now. This time it means subpoena power, and an end to the "salad days".
I really hope I'm wrong. But I fear that we're all in for a big disappointment in 3 weeks. I think there may be areas (like here in Illinois) where they can't cheat. If there are enough of those places left, then we still have half a chance. If not, then we're in big trouble. In which case, I just hope (A) that this time the outrage will be more widespread, so people will actually do something about it, and (B) that it won't be too late already.
-- ARG
October 20, 2006 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh God, someone's looking to Illinois for clean elections?
It may be the model for modern American politics-- a one-party state where Dems and Repubs alike belong to the Trough Party and use every trick to keep reformers at bay-- but the idea that it's somebody's beacon of hope is just sick.
Why do you think Hastert instinctively defended a Dem with a fridge full of bribe money? Because the Trough Party trumps mere partisan identification. He may lose his speakership over it, but he stood for the principle that matters most-- protect the trough.
October 20, 2006 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
.
All I'm saying is that here the fix isn't in already, like it is in Ohio, for example.
In 2005, Ohio voted on several ballot measures to clean up their elections (after the debacle in 2004). Polls showed one measure would likely win by a 2-1 margin (67% to 33%). The official outcome was the opposite -- the measure lost, 2-1. This result was beyond explanation, but it stands.
And since all the election reform measures failed, well, nothing has changed in Ohio.
So would it be rational to expect, say, Mike DeWine to lose his Senate seat? Oh, he's behind in the polls, you say? Yeah, but do you really expect the election result to reflect those poll numbers? I don't.
By contrast, in Illinois I expect the results will pretty closely match the polling. I'm not saying Illinois is the model state for "clean" elections. (Certainly there is some history here.) But compared to what happened in Ohio in 2004 and 2005, we're squeaky clean.
-- ARG
October 20, 2006 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who's telling the truth? Who cares?
Time we spend worrying about whether this is some kind of masterplan of Rove's or Mehlman's or whatever is time that is better spent actually winning the election.
Eyes on the prizes, guys.
October 20, 2006 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well said Aexia, keep your eyes on the prize.
Don't get sucked into the Republican disinformation campaign.
October 21, 2006 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
The fix is in, but we should campaign anyway because we're USED to things not going our way, and when the s**t hits the fan, we'll be better prepared to deal with it.
October 22, 2006 8:26 AM | Reply | Permalink