Centerfield

I'm smiling--but I'll wait for the recount. Slim win. (428 votes out about 50K)

At least the CLG has some decent scalps on their belt, like dispatching Schwartz. The best the Kossacks can claim is Lamont, and he's still an underdog in the general.

Scalps come from actually reaching office.

Club for Growth tends to win a lot more than they lose. I think the lieberman primary is the only victory for kos so far?

Club for Growth has 9 wins and 3 loses so far in 2006.

In 2002 they won 17 and lost 2.

Kos has endorsed a few (very few) winners--but it begs the question of whether the Kos endorsement and/or contributions were crucial factors. Same with some of CfG's endorsements. With some, their material support was telling. With others, it was likely irrelevant or even damaging. Betting on a solid favorite doesn't take a lot of prescience.

They're still not "scalps" unless they reach office, whether we're talking Lamont or Walberg.

CfG has a pretty solid record. And they took a nobody within 500 votes of beating a statewide official. They may have lost this one, but few organizations have 9-3 records without endorsing the favorite or incumbent in any race.

They may have lost this one, but few organizations have 9-3 records without endorsing the favorite or incumbent in any race.

Bull. At least one of their endorsements in that claimed" list was both an incumbent AND a heavy favorite--and would have won handily without their endorsement, or the small amount of money CfG actually provided in that race. Especially as their monetary support was minimal and the endorsement showed up a few weeks before the election, when the incumbent was already leading by quite a stretch. I am not impressed by late endorsements with minimal monetary support that come in for incumbent favorites. Wagon-hitching, at best. That was Henry Cuellar in the Texas 28th, BTW, and this is what Cuellar had to say about the CfG endorsement:

Cuellar's campaign said that the Club for Growth never contacted them before issuing the endorsement, and that the endorsement came "out of left field." Cuellar issued a statement: "I find that with any endorsement you get half of their friends and all of their enemies. The only endorsement that I am looking for is the endorsement of the voters in this district, and I am working hard everyday to earn it."

IOW, no thanks, don't "help" me, please. Toomey sez:

This record is even more impressive than it appears as our candidates faced 33 opponents.

Bull again. It's actually much less impressive to pick up primary wins in multi-candidate races when someone throws millions in support into them. Multi-candidate primaries are generally horribly underfunded. As in the Colorado 5th, for example. Giving someone a million in support when their several opponents have $100K between them to work with and barely sliding in first does not impress. (It does, however, often work.)

They are doing a fairly good job of targeting weak seats. And I can hardly blame Toomey for tooting his own horn. It's a job requirement.

And to add--backing state legislature candidates in primaries and crowing about those as "wins" is also less than impressive.

Gulf War Joe (Liebermann) is a TINO (Thirdparty In Name Only.......)