So the lefties are saying. The problem with that, while they crow about their big victory in the election, is that guns weren’t an issue. Obama ran so hard away from the gun issue, even going so far as to have a fake pro-gun group created, that he quite successfully made firearms a relative non-issue in the presidential election. Now, the left would have you believe that because Obama won the Presidential election, that it’s game set and match for NRA, that we’re done. They even go so far as to make up statistics to “prove” their case.
Despite expending nearly $7 million in a national fear campaign, NRA-endorsed candidates lost 80 percent of their races against gun-control candidates.
Now, that would be true, except for the part where it’s a total lie. Let me give you actual facts:
Of the 23 candidates for the U.S. Senate endorsed by the National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund, the NRA-endorsed candidate won in at least 15 of these races, with the outcome still uncertain in Minnesota (still undecided). Assuming Minnesota comes out as a win for NRA, that’d be 16/25, or 64%.
Of the 248 candidates for the U.S. House of Representatives endorsed by the National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund, the NRA-endorsed candidate won in at least 216 of these races, with the outcome still uncertain in six races, including CA-4, LA-4, MD-1, OH-15, VA-5 and WA-8. That’s an 84% victory rate, not even including the districts still in question.
That’s some scary paper tiger, there. Another interesting factoid on the election is that a lot of senators and reps who had previous had poor ratings from NRA submitted responses to NRA questionaires that would have made them appear to be “pro-gun” – almost like the left is running away from the gun issue as fast as possible.
To quote Murdoc: So is the media saying the gun lobby is dead because it’s done so well or because it’s done so poorly?