Today's installment of campaign-related news items that won't necessarily generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers:
* Going into the Nevada caucuses, Public Policy Polling shows Mitt Romney cruising to an easy win, leading Newt Gingrich by a whopping 25 points.
* Rep. Heath Shuler (D-N.C.), one of Congress' higher-profile Blue Dogs, will retire at the end of the year. Shuler has also passed on the North Carolina gubernatorial race.
* In Massachusetts, Sen. Scott Brown (R) has used nearly $10,000 in donor money to pay his daughter to sing at three campaign events. (Candidates' family members usually go to rallies for free.)
* In Missouri, PPP shows Sen. Claire McCaskill (D) struggling in her re-election bid, generating just 43% support in match-ups against her Republican challengers.
* On a related note, President Obama narrowly lost Missouri in 2008, but PPP shows him tied with Romney in a hypothetical race, with each getting 45% support.
* In Hawaii's U.S. Senate race, Democrat Maizie Hirono is using criticism of George W. Bush in her television ads.
* In Montana's closely-watched Senate race, Public Opinion Strategies shows Rep. Denny Rehberg (R) leading incumbent Sen. Jon Tester (D) by three, 46% to 43%.
* And in Michigan, the latest EPIC/MRA poll former Rep. Pete Hoekstra with a big lead in the Republicans' U.S. Senate primary. The winner will face Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) in November.
Leave a Comment:
In Massachusetts, Sen. Scott Brown (R) has used nearly $10,000 in donor money to pay his daughter to sing at three campaign events. (Candidates' family members usually go to rallies for free.)
Umm, well you are right, but usually we are forced to as well. It is kinda like having to do your chores.
Wait. Huh?!? Sen. Brown uses campaign contributions to pay his daughter to sing? Uhm, I could be wrong but it strikes me that unless his daughter is Lady Gaga or Avril Levigne, and is giving up paid gigs to campaign, this probably isn't a proper use of SuperPAC money.
Since it is only February, I don't put a whole lot of stock in polls showing the horse race if November were today.
And with Mitt leading in Nevada, what happened to Ron Paul's much-touted Nevada organization and his strategy to do well in caucus states? Maybe people are finally figuring out Rep. Paul's ideas are straight out of koo-koo land
There are no rules about how Super PACs can spend their money. This is perfectly legal. A little creepy, but legal.
It's as legal as Gingrich starting non-profits then paying himself with donations given towards those non-profits.
OK, so it is legal but Luddite is correct: It is very, very creepy!
Welcome to SuperPac and campaign bundler controlled politics. With that the citizenry has lost it's right to choose their leadership.
With that the citizenry has lost it's right to choose their leadership.
NO amount of money from a SuperPAC (or candidate directly) will influence how I vote. Unfortunately you are probably correct on a good portion of the American voters that do not follow events closely or at all and will base their choices on ads - which are overwhelmingly negative. So I do not blame the SuperPacs as much as I blame the voters. Think how nice it would be if the average American was extremely involved and informed on choosing our government. A lot of this campaign $$ would not be needed and/or effective.