The American Conservative’s Rod Dreher explains that the Democrats knew that Landrieu’s goose was cooked. Democrats thus refused to shovel any cash, which could be better used in 2016, into this year’s sinking Landrieu reelection effort. The single cause for Landrieu’s embarrassing beating? The policies of Barack Obama. Obama has really put Democrats on the canvas.
From the Times-Picayune‘s analysis:
Two days after the primary election, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee canceled its television advertising buys in Louisiana, and outside left-leaning groups didn’t step in to fill the void. Between Nov. 4 and Dec. 6, 96 percent of the political advertisements running on Louisiana TV stations supported Cassidy.
“I am very surprised that Democrats abandoned a three-term Senator that was well regarded in her caucus,” said Larry Sabato, the head of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia. “I wouldn’t blame her for being bitter. ”
It’s not just that the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee pulled out. Landrieu’s fellow Senators with wealthy political action committees (PACs), like Majority Leader Harry Reid, didn’t step in to help. The Democrats have said they didn’t feel as if they could invest in Landrieu’s race after Nov. 4 because they need to reserve funds for Senators running in 2016.
“[The Democrats said] it would be money they could spend in 2016. I find that to be flimsy excuse,” said Jennifer Duffy, who has watched the Louisiana Senate race for The Cook Report, a Washington D.C. publication. “Does that mean you don’t show up to help one of your own? You don’t even try?”
I agree, it was pretty harsh for the national Democratic Party to cut Landrieu off. But I don’t blame them. There was simply no way she was going to win in Louisiana, in 2014, with Barack Obama as unpopular as he is here, and with her having voted for Obamacare and the HHS mandate. Every penny that the national party would have given her after her showing in November would have been wasted. The party knew that. Should it have given millions it could have saved for 2016 to a candidate who was doomed? I can’t see it. The only difference it would have made is to further impoverish the national party.
Latest posts by Richard C. Young (see all)
- Clintons: “Lethal-to-Americans and Self-Serving-Narcissists” - September 26, 2016
- “Why Aren’t I 50 Points Ahead?” - September 26, 2016
- Oxford Grabs Top Spot in Latest World University Ratings - September 23, 2016