search
top

MAIG to Issue Letter Grades

The Washington Post is reporting that MAIG is going to get into the grading business, noting that they are aiming to be a full counterweight to the NRA. I’m always surprised by anti-gun groups making this declaration, and then imitating NRA’s tactics. Without millions of single-issue or very near single issue voters, grading candidates won’t accomplish anything. It’ll amount to a tempest in a teapot. The only place MAIG can be a counterweight to NRA is in media buys, and then only because they are backed up by a billionaire mogul, and even with media buys, the benefit there is more likely scaring politicians rather than actually mobilizing a voting base.

People were surprised at my concern, when all this started back in December, because the anti-gun folks don’t bring much to the table. This is true, in terms of votes. But we only tally votes every two years, and in the mean time, perception is important. The gun vote has been greatly weakened the past two elections, in terms of perception, because of a combination of it not really being a top issue, and weaknesses on the top of the ticket. The great question is whether the gun vote was dead or merely sleeping. The reaction of the base in the past few months has indicated that it is the latter, but the true test will be the 2014 elections.

Every election since 2008 has been the most important election ever, and we’ve kept losing them (and yes, from a gun perspective, 2010 was a loss, because it wiped out the blue dogs, which was the Dem incentive to avoid gun control, hence where we are right now). MAIG can not be permitted to credibly claim victory in the 2014 races. Even if nothing substantive on guns gets through Congress up through 2014, if we think we’ve won, rather than just thinking we won round one, and go back to sleep, our gun rights will still be doomed in the long term.

UPDATE: Jacob came to the same conclusion about the futility of MAIG letter grades.

21 Responses to “MAIG to Issue Letter Grades”

  1. LC Scotty says:

    OT: Lawyer handling gun confiscation cases (due only to prescription of anti-anxiety meds) does an interview.

    http://www.wben.com/topic/play_window.php?audioType=Episode&audioId=6319907

  2. Rob Crawford says:

    How many of their members will end up with an “F” for “felon”?

  3. aerodawg says:

    Didn’t the Brady’s try and fail at this already?

  4. gary says:

    bloombergs maig should change there name to (MWCR) mayors with criminal records. even bloomies dirty money can”t cover up these dirtbag criminals dirty deeds.

  5. Bram says:

    While their numbers were reduced, the Blue Dogs were not wiped out in 2010. The Democrats did some terrible math (always their Achilles’ heel) and decided they weren’t needed after the last election.

    Look at this map.
    Montana and WV have 2 Democratic Senators, ND, WI, SD, IA, MO, AR, LA, PA, AK, and FL all have one. Every one of them has to play the Blue Dog at least a little to get reelected.

    The coastal Democrats are destroying the Blue Dogs right now – and the Blue Dogs themselves who are committing political suicide. Unless the Republican Party collapses, the Democrats may not regain the Senate after 2014 for decades.

  6. Matt R. says:

    I already gave the gun control guys an F(U). Voting with your dollars still works, the Second Amendment Federation and the NRA got my votes this year (and next year also)….

    Wolves in sheeps’ clothing have long been a problem in politics. I suspect this will continue to be the case for the rest of human history as well.

    –Matt R.

  7. Jim says:

    Outlaw firearms and legalize drugs? Makes sense to me! Yeah, right!

    World going to h-e-double hockey sticks!

    Anybody helping us to lose the 2nd amendment right is going to deserve what they get. We the People are not getting adequate representation in government. Sad!

  8. NUGUN Blog says:

    I still think the NRA’s “ALL IN” was the worst mistake. Rather, they should have said that Romney was weak on guns. And focused on the local elections. And then showed that the locals they supported won. And not give a darn about Romney.

    Cause frankly, I think Romney would pass the same thing Obama will try to pass.

    • Sebastian says:

      I wasn’t a fan of “All In” as the slogan, but the backing of Romney, despite his many flaws, was to avoid what we’re going through now, and will continue to go through for the next four years. It is a newly emboldened progressive movement that’s driving the current gun control push. Had they lost, they would have been demoralized. Romney would likely have disappointed us, but he wouldn’t likely be on a crusade to screw us. So I understand why NRA felt the need to get behind both Romney and McCain. But NRA can’t make gun owners not stay home.

      In general, I’m not a fan of just saying home, even though I understand the impulse, and greatly sympathize with it, because after a while politicians start to wonder if your vote even exists. That’s actually kind of the situation we’re in right now, and why each subsequent election is more serious for us. If 2014 is a disaster for politicians backing gun control, we’ve shown those votes are still there. If people keep staying home waiting for the perfect candidate, the gun vote effectively won’t exists in the minds of the political class, and for all practical purposes, they’d be right.

      I get that people hate the lesser of two evils, but that’s the choice our system produces. Especially true when the gun votes stays home and doesn’t get involved for lack of perfect candidates.

      • Patrick H says:

        Romney would likely have disappointed us, but he wouldn’t likely be on a crusade to screw us

        I just don’t know if that’s true. I feel like he might have.

        Now maybe we’d be in a better position, but maybe not. We’ve awoken so many people to the threat, and added so many NRA members as well as new gun owners, that we actually may be stronger with Obama in the WH.

        • Sebastian says:

          Could be. It’s hard to say. I don’t think anyone can say for sure what Romney would have done. The only thing I can say is that the politics of a Romney crusade against guns doesn’t work. It may not even, in the end, work for Obama, but he doesn’t have to worry about winning another election.

        • HappyWarrior6 says:

          Romney would keep telling us how he passed “common sense gun laws” and holding it in our faces, just like he passed common sense health care reform. See, it works! It’s great! “Everyone got what they wanted.” I’ll never forget that line from the debates when the assault weapons ban came up.

          So either the GOP leadership would have to step in line or Romney would find Democrats to vote his agenda in, which would include tighter gun laws.

          Don’t fool yourself thinking Romney wouldn’t demagogue the issue.

          • Sebastian says:

            I think where we could have ended up in trouble with Romney is if he attempted to chart a moderate course early on, and created a circumstance where the GOP might be willing to back some kind of token effort. We might still see that, even now. But the politics of pushing as fast and hard as the White House has been don’t really work for Romney, because what would he have to gain politically from doing so? Even Bush was only willing give lip service to a renewed Assault Weapons Ban, and that was the issue ten years ago at this point.

            Romney would demagogue the issue if it was to his political advantage to do so. That’s who he is. When he was in Massachusetts, that what he did. But I also think Romney was, to a considerably stronger degree than McCain, was willing to go where the political winds lead him. I think for Romney that would translate into lip service for some measures we wouldn’t appreciate, but with no real effort to get them through Congress. There would have been no White House push in Colorado or other states to pass new laws. Bloomberg would be easier to deal with on his own.

      • HappyWarrior6 says:

        The 4% who vote based on guns alone cuts both ways. If “pro-gun” candidates win, we also can’t claim it was due to their pro-gun stances, either. Basically yes 2014 is important, but no more so than 2012.

        Excepting the focus on flipping legislatures and governors in blue states who have passed terrible gun laws, I would downplay the focus on guns in the national races as a whole and not base your existence on them. At some point more will need to dig in even if the legislatures turn against us. A march on Washington is not out of the question. No way anyone registers their guns, either. And we should expect to see some serious high profile civil rights cases working their way through the courts relating to 2A issues. Like I said, take a page out the “gaybook” on this one.

  9. Jeff says:

    It’s not like it costs anything to issue the letter grades; an intern could write a script to scrape the NRA’s website and reverse the letters in an afternoon.

    • Bitter says:

      They claim that they are going to create a method that uses public statements, too. That gives them flexibility to rate people however they want based on their desire to flip the relevant seat or target someone in a primary.

  10. RP says:

    Was Bloomberg sodomized with a rifle as a child? I know a few million is nothing to him, but this guy is obsessed.

    I don’t think the Obama/Biden campaign is really a huge force. But this jerk from NYC is everywhere. I feel like its 100 million gun owners vs Bloomberg and his bank account.

    Millions of people all over the world are starving to death and dying from preventable diseases. 37% of American adults are not working and not even looking for a job. $17 trillion in debt. 48 million people on food stamps.
    And these clowns choose gun control as their pet issue???

    Hopefully people who don’t care about guns get sick of this crap and want to stick it to the ruling party in 2014.

    • Nathaniel says:

      He’s a garden-variety control-freak, albeit one with billions to fight his moral crusades. Guns represent the ultimate personal means to resist someone else’s exertion of control over you; they are therefore offensive and dangerous to those who see themselves as the controllers.

top