2010. whatever party the president is, his party tends to lose seats the next time people get to vote. it happens almost every time. when you compare what happened in the first midterm under president clinton to what happened under president obama in his first midterm, look what happened in the senate. the republicans did not get much this time around in the senate. even as their landslide got bigger in the house, it shrunk a little bit in the senate. why did that happen? that happened because i am not a witch happened. the republicans were so cocky that they would be able to run the table in the 2010 elections that they picked some koo koo for cocoa puffs candidates. they picked really, really out there far right candidates for the senate in a bunch of states in 2010, and those candidates did not win, even in that bright red year. so the democrats held the senate in 2010. i mean, there was i am not a witch christine o donnell in delaware. there was second amendment remedies
party, which is a shell corporation. there s nothing there. can you really fly in a get out the vote infrastructure? not only does it have to be organic, but it can t be done in a few weeks. john ralston was right there. the death of the republican party in nevada seems to have doomed sharon s chances at winning a senate seat that year. this is not to put republicans down. this does not represent morally qualitative about republicans. it s a really important organizational fact about how different the two parties are. it doesn t factor, i think enough into the way we think about partisan contests. the republican party, at this moment, is not a very strong party. just organizationally speaking, they don t seem to have it together. the republican party exists alongside a very strong, very rich conservative movement. very strong, very rich
little problem with insolvency. we saw this back in nevada back in 2010 the state republican party in nevada, you may remember, was in shambles. we traveled to nevada right before the big harry reid senate race in november 2010. at that late date it was namely getting tup vote. sharon ingle was ahead in the polls, but she ultimately lost the race because the nevada republican party was a hot mess. they could not get it together enough to figure out how to do basic turn out efforts for their own voters. on election day, they lost. fast forward two years now and it s now the republican party of minnesota that is a nationally reportable hot mess.
biggest elections in our lifetime, the minnesota republican party is having a little problem with insolvency. we saw this back in nevada back in 2010 the state republican party in nevada, you may remember, was in shambles. we traveled to nevada right before the big harry reid senate race in november 2010. at that late date it was namely getting tup vote. sharon ingle was ahead in the polls, but she ultimately lost the race because the nevada republican party was a hot mess. they could not get it together enough to figure out how to do basic turn out efforts for their own voters. on election day, they lost. fast forward two years now and it s now the republican party of
party s need assistance. should be noted though, take a critical eye of what happened in 2010. what we saw was karl rove and his endless supply of cash can do a lot, but not everything. it can t fill the organizal void by a hallowed out republican party in chaos. as much money as he has to throw around, there s certain party functions that take humans, local grassroots humans and that can t be replicated by money flown in somewhere else. what s the sharon turn ut infrastructure if the republican party isn t all that here, what is she relying on for turning out votes? karl rove. what? american crossroads announced they will dump a bunch of money into nevada to help them with get out the vote.