NRA Emerges as Big Loser in 2008 Election

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Ha ha ha!

The Latest Charade

It seems that every election cycle there is an elaborate and almost comical charade that takes place. It goes something like this:

1) The National Rifle Association (NRA) alerts the media of a massive war chest to be spent to elect or defeat candidates based on their position on gun control.

2) Very small amounts of NRA monies are doled out to candidates in extremely safe seats.

3) Late in the election cycle, massive NRA funding is spent to defeat designated "gun grabbers." Wild and outrageous charges are hurled at these candidates.

4) Immediately after the election is concluded, the NRA claims a great victory, citing the percentage of winning candidates it has supported. This is duly reported in the press and touted in all the pro-gun publications. The elective power of the NRA becomes part of the “conventional wisdom.”

5) Later, careful analysis of the election results reveals that the majority of NRA-supported candidates would have won without the NRA. More importantly, in races where the NRA concentrates its attacks, their tactics are shown to have had no significant impact on the results. Unfortunately for the purveyors of conventional wisdom, the NRA claims of great victory have already been set in concrete. Future candidates are warned of the fearsome power of the big bad NRA.

Last Tuesday’s election once again followed the first half of the traditional pattern. During the summer, the NRA announced that it intended to spend $40 million in the elections—including an eye-popping $15 million campaign intended to defeat Democratic presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama. The NRA backed some ‘A’-rated supporters in safe seats and launched outrageous attacks on other politicians, with Senator Obama their primary target.

But after Senator Obama’s landslide victory in the presidential election—and Democrats’ significant gains in both the House and Senate—the national media finally called attention to the NRA’s sleight of hand.

NBC’s Carrie Dann reported: “As the vote margins of the presidential race rolled in, the one-time wedge issue of the Second Amendment did not seem to pack the national-stage punch for which the influential gun lobby had aimed. Nationally, gun owners broke for McCain by almost the identical margin that they broke for Bush in 2004. But in the states where the NRA Political Victory Fund's toughest efforts against Obama were concentrated—gun-rich regions in states like Colorado, Pennsylvania, and New Mexico—Obama’s victory was decisive. The Democratic nominee won those states by eight, 11, and 15 points, respectively. Of the 11 states where the NRA's anti-Obama ads were reportedly aired, McCain won only one: Texas. Down the ballot, the NRA backed all six of the Republican Senate candidates who lost to Democratic challengers. And in several high-profile House contests, NRA-backed candidates like Ed Tinsley, Bill Sali, Steve Chabot, and Phil English came up short … The influence of the once-dominant gun lobby appears to be up for debate...”

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence pointed out some other salient facts about the election in a new report, noting that “The NRA spent over thirty-one times more money against Obama than it spent in its negative efforts in 2000 against Al Gore” and “The NRA spent over 90% of its independent expenditures on losing candidates.”

Only time will tell if the purveyors of common wisdom will finally absorb the truth of the effect of the NRA on national elections (or lack thereof). We should remain cognizant, however, that the NRA had $15 million to waste on this election. Pro-gun control forces did not. Now is the time for those who support sensible gun laws to put some of their money where their heart is—there is still important work to be done to reduce the 30,000 lives lost annually to gun violence in our country.

[atomicbloke]

Great insight!

Hopefull everyone will see through the facede of the NRA backed by big dollars from the gun industry.

Day by day the country rejects pillars of the conservative era and becomes more progressive. Obama's victory will truly mark the herald of a new dawn.

Guns were the primary reason that forced me to leave the country.

[W*GS]

Gun control was virtually a non-issue in this election, so the impact of the NRA's spending was small. AFAICT, gun control isn't high on Obama's task list.

The NRA has been winning victories at the state level and in the courts, instead, so it's a bit hasty to call the NRA a paper tiger.

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by atomicbloke

Great insight!

Hopefull everyone will see through the facede of the NRA backed by big dollars from the gun industry.

Day by day the country rejects pillars of the conservative era and becomes more progressive. Obama's victory will truly mark the herald of a new dawn.

Guns were the primary reason that forced me to leave the country.

Why?

[W*GS]

Of course, LABF presents the view of the rabid anti-gunners, the "Coalition to Stop Gun Violence", as some sort of reasonable view.

We've seen their act before, and if any group is a paper tiger, it's the CSGV and its ilk. They've been losing for a long time now, and are near-spent as a political force.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by atomicbloke

Great insight!

Hopefull everyone will see through the facede of the NRA backed by big dollars from the gun industry.

Day by day the country rejects pillars of the conservative era and becomes more progressive. Obama's victory will truly mark the herald of a new dawn.

QFT.

[W*GS]

And people wonder why I question those who claim Obama will walk on water...

[Florida_Bronco]

Originally Posted by W*GS

Gun control was virtually a non-issue in this election, so the impact of the NRA's spending was small. AFAICT, gun control isn't high on Obama's task list.

The NRA has been winning victories at the state level and in the courts, instead, so it's a bit hasty to call the NRA a paper tiger.

I gotta agree on this.

As a gun owner/enthusiast, I was concerned about Obama's "anti gun" views, but when you cut through the bull**** I didn't feel that he would any serious threat.

With the swing of more and more states lifting their firearm ownership laws and allowing concealed carry, the failure of previous assault weapon ban and the recent SCOTUS ruling, I think it's become pretty clear that "gun control" is not the answer.

Passing any meaningful "anti gun" legislation is going to be dang near impossible, assuming that they even try, given the enormous political risk that comes with it.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

W*GS vs. reality:

Originally Posted by W*GS

Gun control was virtually a non-issue in this election, so the impact of the NRA's spending was small. AFAICT, gun control isn't high on Obama's task list.

Last Tuesday’s election once again followed the first half of the traditional pattern. During the summer, the NRA announced that it intended to spend $40 million in the elections—including an eye-popping $15 million campaign intended to defeat Democratic presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama. The NRA backed some ‘A’-rated supporters in safe seats and launched outrageous attacks on other politicians, with Senator Obama their primary target.

But after Senator Obama’s landslide victory in the presidential election—and Democrats’ significant gains in both the House and Senate—the national media finally called attention to the NRA’s sleight of hand.

NBC’s Carrie Dann reported: “As the vote margins of the presidential race rolled in, the one-time wedge issue of the Second Amendment did not seem to pack the national-stage punch for which the influential gun lobby had aimed. Nationally, gun owners broke for McCain by almost the identical margin that they broke for Bush in 2004. But in the states where the NRA Political Victory Fund's toughest efforts against Obama were concentrated—gun-rich regions in states like Colorado, Pennsylvania, and New Mexico—Obama’s victory was decisive. The Democratic nominee won those states by eight, 11, and 15 points, respectively. Of the 11 states where the NRA's anti-Obama ads were reportedly aired, McCain won only one: Texas. Down the ballot, the NRA backed all six of the Republican Senate candidates who lost to Democratic challengers. And in several high-profile House contests, NRA-backed candidates like Ed Tinsley, Bill Sali, Steve Chabot, and Phil English came up short … The influence of the once-dominant gun lobby appears to be up for debate...”

[cutthemdown]

Obama may try to get a new assault gun ban at the federal level to replace the brady bill. He may tighten up the restrictions on private party gun sales, and gun show sales etc.

I doubt though he goes much further then that.

[Florida_Bronco]

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

Obama may try to get a new assault gun ban at the federal level to replace the brady bill. He may tighten up the restrictions on private party gun sales, and gun show sales etc.

I doubt though he goes much further then that.

I doubt we'll see another assault ban. The last one was a failure and was one of the deciding factors in the democrats losing so many spots in Congress after that election.

I really don't see the democrats risking their political stronghold on something that is becoming less and less of an issue.

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

W*GS vs. reality:

Obviously LABF wants to read only what he wants to read.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by W*GS

And people wonder why I question those who claim Obama will walk on water...

And no doubt you're going to post their names.

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

And no doubt you're going to post their names.

atomicbloke, for one.

"Obama's victory will truly mark the herald of a new dawn."

Same piffle as we heard when Reagan won in 1980. Snort.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

And no doubt you're going to post their names.

[cutthemdown]

I agree with Fla for the most part. Obama wants to make major changes he won't bother with gun control. That sort of stuff would be 2nd term when he can just screw gun owners and then say so what I don't need your vote again................NO GUNS FOR YOU!!!!!

HE'S GONNA TAKE AWAY OUR GUNZZZZZZZ!!!

[Spider]

Originally Posted by Florida_Bronco

I doubt we'll see another assault ban. The last one was a failure and was one of the deciding factors in the democrats losing so many spots in Congress after that election.

I really don't see the democrats risking their political stronghold on something that is becoming less and less of an issue.

i dont know, I read somewhere that gun ownership is down ....