Remember when the Republican establishment declared war on the tea party?
One year ago, the Crossroads super PAC founded by Karl Rove launched a new group to defend incumbents from volatile, too-conservative challengers who might scuttle the party’s takeover of the Senate in 2014. The empire-strikes-back counteroffensive gained allies like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and gridlock-weary Republicans in Congress after tea-party members shut down the government in October.
But so far, what was billed as an ugly and expensive all-out civil war within the GOP looks more like a few scattered skirmishes unlikely to declare a clear victor.
“There’s no question it was overstated,” said Rob Engstrom, national political director of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. “How can you have a civil war when there’s only five or six primaries that could become competitive?”
While there’s still time for more challengers to gain traction, the Republican establishment is mostly holding its fire, a dramatic comedown from the brash, anti-tea-party rhetoric of last year.
The Crossroads offshoot, the Conservative Victory Project, hasn’t spent a nickel on a Republican primary in 2014. Neither has the Republican Main Street Partnership, the moderate GOP group led by former Rep. Steve LaTourette of Ohio. The chamber of commerce has intervened so far only in Republican primaries in Alabama, Idaho, and Kentucky, where Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell faces a bigger threat from Democrat Alison Lundergan Grimes than from Republican Matt Bevin.
Indeed, even as spring and summer primaries loom, most of the Republican and conservative spending targets Democrats on the ballot in November. At the forefront of the general-election assault is Americans for Prosperity, the group bankrolled by the Koch industrialist family. Most of its $30 million in spending has attacked Democrats over Obamacare, an issue that has proved far more unifying for the Republican Party than any of the issues that divide it.
“The narrative of a Republican civil war is always enticing for the media and as a fundraising angle for groups, but if you look at the number of contested, hot primaries this year, it doesn’t seem atypical,” said Tim Phillips, president of Americans for Prosperity.
Despite the commotion raised over seven of 12 Republican senators drawing opposition from the tea-party movement, most of those incumbents look secure. One challenger, Liz Cheney, already dropped her bid against Sen. Michael Enzi of Wyoming.
And a leading instigator of interparty battles, the Club for Growth, has failed to draft serious Republican rivals to 10 members tagged by its “primary my congressman” initiative. A little-known tea-party candidate who took on West Virginia Rep. Shelley Moore Capito — another member bashed by the Club for Growth — recently dropped a Senate bid. So did Rep. Steve King of Iowa, singled out by Crossroads as a potential primary target after making controversial statements about illegal immigrants. That left a muddled Republican primary in that state, as well as in Georgia and Alaska, making it difficult for outside groups to pick winners. “We will involve ourselves in primaries only where we think we can make a difference,” Engstrom said.
Crossroads, in particular, has reason to be cautious. The super PAC and its associated nonprofit spent more than $300 million in 2012 but was unsuccessful in defeating President Obama or helping the GOP take control of the Senate. Two of its multimillion-dollar donors, Bob Perry and Harold Simmons, died last year, while another powerhouse fundraiser, former Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, ended his involvement with Crossroads after the 2012 election.
In contrast to the more than $1 million spent against Democrats by this point in the 2012 election cycle, Crossroads has aired less than $200,000 worth of television ads this year. So far, the Big Daddy of super PACs been vastly overshadowed by Americans for Prosperity’s early and massive onslaught.
“Crossroads usually plays this far out but ratchets up in the second quarter,” said Rick Wiley, former political director at the Republican National Committee. “I think it’s great that AFP has stepped in because it gives Crossroads some time to raise money.”
But the rise of state-based and candidate-oriented groups is diminishing the need for national groups like Crossroads to step into primaries. In one of the more competitive Republican races, home-state supporters of Sen. Thad Cochran of Mississippi launched their own group to beat back state Sen. Chris McDaniel. Even Virginia Senate candidate Ed Gillespie, a former Republican Party chairman who helped launch Crossroads with Rove, is getting his own super PAC.
“I think Crossroads will have a significant role going forward, but you do have a lot of state operatives who will occasionally do their own thing,” said Mississippi Republican committeeman Henry Barbour, who is helping raise money for the pro-Cochran group. “I think it’s healthy to have groups that are state based. We’re lean and mean.”
Crossroads raised expectations about intervening in primaries with a much ballyhooed announcement about the Conservative Victory Project one year ago on the front page of The New York Times. At the time, Crossroads officials said they were chastened by candidates in 2010 and 2012 like Christine O’Donnell, Todd Akin, and Richard Mourdock, who fumbled in the general election and prevented the party from picking up Senate seats considered in reach.
But Crossroads spokesman Jonathan Collegio said this week that 2014 crop of Senate candidates is the strongest in a decade, from Tom Cotton in Arkansas to Thom Tillis in North Carolina to Steve Daines in Montana. The Conservative Victory Project hasn’t spent any money to thwart weak primary candidates, Collegio said, because it doesn’t see the need.
“Candidate vetting isn’t necessarily a high-cost initiative,” he said. “Just starting the conversation about candidate quality has paid enormous dividends.”
Club for Growth spokesman Barney Keller disputed the idea that its screening process had changed. “We hope the Republican establishment is with us on all of our races,” he quipped.
Crossroads and its nonprofit arm raised only $6 million in 2013, raising questions about whether its slower fundraising pace, not candidate quality, is the driving force behind its lower profile. Still, Collegio said the Crossroads groups are on track to raise the $70 to $100 million it has spent on congressional races in the past two elections. “We’ll be engaged as we have been in previous cycles,” he said.
Defending Main Street and two related groups raised $1.7 million last year and plans to meet its fundraising goal of $8 million, said chief operating officer Sarah Chamberlain. She’s keeping an eye on Republican House members targeted by the Club for Growth like Mike Simpson of Idaho, Greg Walden of Oregon and Renee Elmers of North Carolina. Trashing Simpson as a RINO (Republican In Name Only). the Club for Growth is backing Republican challenger Bryan Smith.
“Nothing would make us happier than not to have to deal with this,” Chamberlain said. “The Club was much more boisterous and more threatening a few months ago than they are today. We’re kind of sitting and watching and hoping they won’t come into these races, but prepared if they do.”
What We're Following See More »
"As Donald Trump captures the mantle of presumptive Republican nominee, a new poll finds he begins his general election campaign well behind Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton. The new CNN/ORC Poll, completed ahead of Trump's victory last night, found Clinton leads 54% to 41%, a 13-point edge over the New York businessman, her largest lead since last July. Clinton is also more trusted than Trump on many issues voters rank as critically important, with one big exception. By a 50% to 45% margin, voters say Trump would do a better job handling the economy than Clinton would."
In an editorial, the Wall Street Journal sets out to relieve conservatives of the temptation to back a third-party candidate over Donald Trump. "The thought is more tempting this year than most, but it’s still hard to see how this would accomplish more than electing Hillary Clinton and muddling the message from a Trump defeat. ... The usual presidential result is that the party that splinters hands the election to the other, more united party." But in the Weekly Standard, Bill Kristol is having none of it: "Serious people, including serious conservatives, cannot acquiesce in Donald Trump as their candidate. ... Donald Trump should not be president of the United States. The Wall Street Journal cannot bring itself to say that. We can say it, we do say it, and we are proud to act accordingly."
- Nate Cohn, New York Times: "There have been 10-point shifts over the general election season before, even if it’s uncommon. But there isn’t much of a precedent for huge swings in races with candidates as well known as Mr. Trump and Mrs. Clinton. A majority of Americans may not like her, but they say they’re scared of him."
- Roger Simon, PJ Media: "He is particularly fortunate that his opposition, Hillary Clinton, besides still being under threat of indictment and still not having defeated Bernie Sanders (go figure), is a truly uninspiring, almost soporific, figure. ... She's not a star. Trump is. All attention will be on him in the general election. The primaries have shown us what an advantage that is. What that means for American politics may not all be good, but it's true."
- The editors, The Washington Examiner: "At the very least, Trump owes it to the country he boasts he will 'make great again' to try to demonstrate some seriousness about the office he seeks. He owes this even to those who will never consider voting for him. He can start by swearing off grand displays of aggressive and apparently deliberate ignorance. This is not too much to ask."
Humana announced it plans to "exit certain statewide individual markets and products 'both on and off [Obamacare] exchange,' the insurer said in its financial results released Monday." The company also said price hikes may be forthcoming, "commensurate with anticipated levels of risk by state." Its individual-market enrollment was down 21% in the first quarter from a year ago.