Today's installment of campaign-related news items that won't necessarily generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers:
* After an Obama campaign offensive on Mitt Romney's Massachusetts record, the Republican campaign has a new ad claiming Romney had "the best jobs record in a decade" as governor.
* President Obama's re-election team, which raised less money in May than Romney and the RNC, has begun using this donation deficit as a new fundraising pitch.
* In his first 2012 forecast, Nate Silver says Obama's odds of victory in November are "just over 60%" at this point in the race.
* The U.S. Senate race in North Dakota is becoming increasingly interesting, with a new Mason-Dixon poll showing Heidi Heitkamp (D) narrowly leading Rick Berg (R), 47% to 46%. Heitkamp also released one of the more chilling television ads of the year this week.
* It seems hard to believe given the auto-industry rescue and other recent polling, but the latest EPIC-MRA shows Romney leading Obama in Michigan, 46% to 45%.
* A new Latino Decisions poll shows Obama leading Romney nationwide among Latinos by a whopping 43 points, 66% to 23%.
* Karl Rove's attack operations, Crossroads GPS and American Crossroads, are launching TV ads in three key U.S. Senate races: Indiana, Montana, and New Mexico.
* And former presidential hopeful Rick Santorum has a new political organization, called Patriot Voices. He's also taken over the super PAC, the Red White and Blue Fund, which supported him during the 2012 primaries.
Leave a Comment:
And again: Democrats aren't going to know what hit them. They're now getting ready to start finding out. And the lies will work because the Dems haven't positioned themselves.
Kiss the country good-bye. This is NOT going to be pretty.
Please correct me if I am wrong, but I thought Super PACs were independent of a candidate. So - how does the candidate then take it over? Something about this just smells bad.
I believe the point of real concern is Super PAC's taking over the candidate and becoming a kitchen cabinet that provides only self-serving options for the president to choose from. Or am I missing something?
maphi - I'm not sure what the answer to your question actually is.
Maybe it (like so many things in the law, and particularly in "election law") is based on a "technicality": now that he's no longer a candidate he can participate in the PAC all he wants to? As I say, I don't know, but I strongly suspect it's something along such lines...