In contrast to Kos, who as I and others have noted backed 15 Congressional candidates and they all lost, the Club for Growth had a pretty decent 19-14 record in Senate and House general election races this year, a record that looks better when you look at some of the longshots they backed (not that Kos didn’t back a few longshots, but you’d think in 15 races he’d get one right).
4 thoughts on “Not a Bad W-L Record”
Comments are closed.
i don’t really think he was looking for a good win-loss record.. afterall, if that was his focus he could have put obvious winners like Barbara Boxer, or other sure winners from solid blue regions, on the list. If i remember right all his picks were long shots and the purpose of the pick was to generate donations for long shot candidates.
Like I said, that’s true to some extent, but (1) he sure did talk up people like Brad Carson all year, (2) Tony Knowles in particular was not a long shot, (3) if he was looking to make himself influential, this wasn’t how to do it, and (4) the Club for Growth wasn’t endorsing too many sure things either, but they managed to back 19 winners. If he’d supported 3 or 4 winners out of 15, maybe there’d be a better argument than “we raised money for races we had no chance of winning”
Here’s the full Kos list, BTW, in case it disappears:
Tony Miller, Ben Konop, Dan Mongiardo, Richard Romero, Samara Barend, Jeff Seemann, Nancy Farmer, Ginny Schrader, Jan Schneider, Lois Murphy, Jim Newberry, Brad Carson, Tony Knowles, Stan Matsunaka, Richard Morrison.
Well I think Carson was someone he thought had a chance, (i think i also remember him writing that he either knew him or had alot of contact with him- so that may have played a part) but considering he was running in a solid red state i think it can be considered a long shot. I just think there are not that many Oklahoma residents who visit his site. So influencing the vote was never really in the cards. On the otherhand, trying to get Carson some extra dough so that he could run a decent campaign was the idea. At the end of the day it wasn’t really close, but it sure seemed like it was a pretty good horse race until the 2nd.
I would say that Knoles had a 50/50 shot. as we all know, Alaska is a red state and the only real knock on his opponent was that she was placed into that position by her Dad. Again, not a sure thing at all.
As i stated earleir I recall his desire for influence had more to do with fundraising, and by all accounts he was influential in that. I still can;t believe the amount of parity the Democrats had with the Republicans when it came to campaign cash. Nobody can deny that the Democrats received uprecedented donations from regular joe’s. More than they had ever received or really expected to ever receive. I would say this shocked the DNC chairman- and probably made him irrelevent since he really got his job because of his ability to get large campaign contributions. Democrats may have been beter served with a strategist rather than a fundraiser for the top spot.
again, i don’t think any of Kos’s pick where sure things and all of them were long shots. In fact, all of them were candidates who needed campaign cash to run a decent campaign and most of them got extra cash. They just didn;t win.
Heck, he had been a vocal supporter of Obama and many other sure thing Democrats, but he did not see the need to put them on his list since extra campaign cash was not needed.
I don;t know how fair it is to compare Kos and Club for Growth since their picks were not really based on the same premise. Kos picked those who needed campaign funds and had long shot chances and Club for Growth picks those who agreed or fit in with their beliefs or goals-regardless of the need for campaign cash. Its really apples and oranges
Also, frankly, did you really expect Kos-with a site like his-with the readership he receives- to not “talk up” those he supported? Of course he would and anybody with a site like his- whether on the right or left- would be remiss if they did not also talk up their favorit candidate. In my mind its par for the course.