Can Republicans Afford The 2010 Election ?

We've heard a lot of bragging from the Party of No recently about how well they are going to do in the 2010 elections. They believe they'll win a lot of new seats in the House of Representatives, and some even claim they'll take the House back from the Democrats. But if money means anything in political races, and in America it definitely does, then that may be nothing more than wishful thinking.

According to the blog Politico, the Republicans have fallen far behind the Democrats in the cash they've raised to finance the House races. This is not good news when there are around 80 House seats that will be in play in 2010, and 40 that the Republicans have a decent chance of winning.

Right now it looks like even if the Republicans spend all their money on a targeted 40 House races, they will still only be able to spend less than $100,000 on each of those races. That's chicken feed when you consider the cost of a modern House race.

In the last three months, only 75 of the 177 House Republicans have transferred money into the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) coffers totaling $2.1 million (with only 11 Republicans giving $50,000 or more). In that same period, 90 House Democrats have given about $4 million (with 35 of them giving $50,000 or more).

It doesn't look like new NRCC chairman Pete Sessions is doing a very good job with his promise to fill Republican campaign chests. That won't surprise many Texans, who know about his poor record as a House member.

Currently the NRCC has $4.3 million in it's campaign account. When you subtract the more than $2 million in debt that it owes, the NRCC has less than $2.3 million. Meanwhile, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) has $15.3 million with $2.6 million in outstanding debt. That leaves the DCCC with $12.7 million. That's a substantial difference.

NRCC executive director Guy Harrison thinks the Republicans don't need as much money because they have an ace-in-the-hole with the teabagger movement. He says, "We love the tea party movement. We know the tea party movement is a group of people that Republicans are going to have to actively work with them and get them involved in their campaigns, and we have to have an agenda that brings them to our side. Go back to '92 and look at the Perot voter. It's not that different."

I have to disagree. The Perot voters were a largely unknown quantity. They didn't come with nearly the high negative perceptions of the teabaggers. For every inch the Republicans move nearer the teabaggers, they move several inches away from moderate middle-of-the-road voters (the voters that a party must have to win).

The Democrats won big in 2008 because the majority of Americans didn't like where the right-wingers were trying to take the country. I can't believe most voters are ready to side with an even more radical group of right-wingers. I hope the Republicans do tie their fortunes to the teabagger movement. That would be the greatest gift Democrats could have.

It looks like the Republicans might not have as rosy a future as they think, at least in 2010.