About the NRSC
Shop the Store
Contact Us
Jeff Merkley promised Oregonians that the health care exchanges would be like a food court for people buying insurance.

Then, when problem after problem arose from Cover Oregon, Merkley, despite casting the deciding vote for ObamaCare, cast blame on Oracle for all of Cover Oregon’s problems.

Now, $200 million later, news today broke that Cover Oregon is being abandoned altogether. Unfortunately, thanks to Merkley’s vote, Oregonians aren’t able to do the same.

Jeff Merkley repeatedly promised Oregonians that ObamaCare wouldn't harm seniors, families, and middle class workers, but that simply wasn't true. Now after pedaling falsehoods, lies and spin for the last year, the truth about Jeff Merkley’s reckless policies are exposed for exactly what it is: a disaster that Oregonians are left paying the price for.

Click here to read Portland Business Journal's article on Cover Oregon.

Donate Now

Brook Hougesen | April 24, 2014 |
Senator John Walsh (D-MT) is in trouble. So much so that even former Montana Democratic Governor Brian Schweitzer admitted that Walsh is vulnerable in the Democratic primary “if that primary election were held today it would be too close to call”, he said.

Schweitzer went on to detail his doubts explaining that as of now, Republican Steve Daines would beat Walsh in the general election: “If the election were held today, Steve Daines would probably win it.”

Gov. Schweitzer’s prediction underscores what is already clear: John Walsh’s campaign is floundering.

Donate Now

Brook Hougesen | April 24, 2014 |

Photo Credit: Ron Cogswell

For some time, journalists and political observers have wondered how Harry Reid's Majority PAC runs ads that always seems to be strategically coordinated with the campaigns they are supporting, since said coordination is prohibited by law. Now we know.

Yesterday, our friends at the DSCC tweeted this "important message for New Hampshire."

You'll notice it linked to a hidden "message" page on Jeanne Shaheen's website providing what seems to be a script with research and high resolution images of the Senator that would be the type that commonly appear in political ads run by outside groups like Harry Reid's Majority PAC. Remember, coordination between the DSCC and these outside groups is prohibited by law.

Turns out that over the last few months, we've picked up on the fact that each time the DSCC sends an "important message" to voters of a battleground state, a liberal outside group quickly adheres to the message by producing an ad to be run on television. In other words, anytime the DSCC sends an "important message," it is a directive to outside groups to run an "uncoordinated" ad (since, you know coordination would be illegal). Pretty confident in our theory, yesterday our Communications Director made an open bet:

We also note the hypocrisy of Shaheen ranting about the "people's pledge" to limit outside money while posting images scripts for sources of outside money to run ads).

Turns out we gave Majority PAC too much credit. Less than 24 hours after receiving the directive from the DSCC, Senate Majority PAC has reserved hundreds of thousands of dollars of air time in Manchester New Hampshire. Remember, coordination would be illegal, so Democrats are trying their best to find ways to subvert (or work around) the law.

This isn't the first time we've seen this pattern, but it is the most egregious. Check out the following examples:

-- In North Carolina, the DSCC tweeted this "important message" on April 11. Four days later, Harry Reid's Majority PAC released this ad April 15th.

-- Also in North Carolina, the DSCC tweeted this "important message" on March 20th. Six days later, Majority PAC released this ad March 26th.

-- In Arkansas the DSCC tweeted an "important message" both on April 7th and April 8th. Patriot Majority released this ad just a week later.

Does anyone believe that these are all coincidences? Of course not. Does anyone have any thoughts as to what script that Majority PAC's new ad in New Hampshire will follow? We sure don't.

Help Republicans fight back. Donate to the 51st vote fund today.

Donate Now

Bill Murphy | April 24, 2014 |

Thomas Sowell once said,

"When you want to help people, you tell them the truth. When you want to help yourself, you tell them what they want to hear."
Our friends at the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee have become masters of the latter. In a new memo released this morning, they write that Republicans have "confirmed that the effort to make Senate races a referendum on the President and the health care law has failed. Republicans are now discontinuing the strategy they’ve employed the last 18 months."

It was just last week that we explained that although Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer are desperately trying to change the subject from Obamacare to something else, their problem is that the most likely voters in 2014 don't want to. There's a reason for that. The topics that Democratic Senators, campaigns and candidates are focused on discussing in 2014 aren't on any legislative agenda that will come before the House or Senate (ranging from personhood to the devastating situation of pregnancy resulting from a rape or incest).

The truth is that the economy remains stagnant. Yet Barack Obama, Harry Reid and Democratic Senators like Mary Landrieu, Kay Hagan, and the Marks (Begich, Pryor, Warner, & Udall) do nothing about it.

The truth is that Obamacare remains a disaster. Which is why the Administration still refuses to disclose essential facts about who is paying and actually signing up - while unilaterally delaying politically unpalatable parts of the law (and the reason why the Administration Official tasked with implementing the law resigned in disgrace earlier this month.

The truth is that despite claiming to stand for women, Barack Obama, Harry Reid and Democratic Senators like Mary Landrieu, Kay Hagan, and the Marks (Begich, Pryor, Warner, & Udall) have done nothing to help young women find jobs, give women with families more flexibility, and women approaching retirement the peace of mind that essential programs like Medicare will exist and that opportunity will be plentiful for their children and grandchildren.

Democrats want to cynically insist that despite four years of polls showing that Obamacare is unpopular, that the fact that citizens are signing up for a program that they are mandated by law to sign up for is somehow a sign of popularity. It isn't, and they know that, which is why not a single Democratic candidate in a competitive battleground state has made their support for Obamacare a centerpiece of their campaign.

Think about it, if Obamacare was such a success, wouldn't vulnerable Democrats like Mary Landrieu, Mark Begich and Kay Hagan be barnstorming their states celebrating it? Wouldn't Barack Obama be traveling to New Hampshire, Arkansas, Colorado and Iowa touting the fact that despite four years of heavy doubt, Americans are now in love with the law? Wouldn't Democratic campaigns be running commercial after commercial touting the fact that millions are celebrating the law they were just forced (under penalty of law) to sign up for?

The truth is that Democrats are desperate to focus on things that survey after survey makes clear is an afterthought for people who do not reside at the DNC, DSCC, and the DCCC. Voters are too smart for that, in fact they are tired of being lied to by those controlling Washington.

If our friends at the DSCC truly believe that Republicans have conceded that Obamacare is a success, we have a challenge for not only them, but every Democrat running in a battleground Senate state.

We challenge any of these vulnerable Democratic Senators or candidates to focus on Obamacare in a series of town hall meetings, explaining why so many of the promises that they made have been broken and to make their reelection a referendum on their support for a law that they claim is such a success.

Help us challenge Democrats on Obamacare in 2014. Donate today.

Donate Now

Bill Murphy | April 23, 2014 |
The New York Times has partnered with the Kaiser Family Foundation to conduct polling in four southern states featuring 2014 Senate races. Each has deep methodological and reporting flaws that draw into question all of the findings, none more so than the Arkansas poll.

There is a basic tenet of voter targeting in political circles that dictates those who have voted in the past are more likely to vote in the future. This is not infallible, but it is a good place to start.

This is borne out by 2010 exit polls showing that 96% of voters in Arkansas, 94% of voters in Kentucky, and 98% of voters in Louisiana had voted in the 2008 Presidential (data is not available from North Carolina, but you see the pattern). In each case it was only 3% or 4% who say they did not vote for one of the major party candidates.

This is why the poll conducted in Arkansas by NYT-Kaiser showing only 53% of the sample had voted for a major party candidate in the 2012 Presidential race is a shockingly low number (59% in KY, 59% in LA, 69% in NC).

Among those who do report that they voted in ’12, the Romney-Obama ratios are way off. Every single state has a double digit bias in favor of the DEMs. Look at the head-to-head comparisons of these polls compared to the actual vote below.

These polls were conducted among an adult sample, but some of the data is reported among a “registered voter” sample. The definition of said registered voter sample is highly suspect.

The release claims that 1,027 adults in Arkansas completed the survey. Question 24 on page 2 indicates that 79% of Arkansan adult respondents are registered to vote at their current address. Anyone with a calculator can figure out that this works out to about 811 voters in the poll… but the survey reports having 857 registered voters. Where did these extra voters come from? Are they misidentified? Are they not being reported in some questions and only in others? Do they even exist?

Adding insult to injury, the demographic data for the registered voter sample has not been released.

Bottom line, the data is both unreliable and misleading.
Ward Baker | April 23, 2014 |

Congressman Gary Peters has been an Obamacare fan from day one. In fact, he said on multiple occasions he likes Obamacare more every time he reads it.

"And I actually got the bill, and read the bill. And the more I read it, the more I liked it.”
Gary Peters also stood with the President to pass Obamacare and repeated the pledge:

“If you're covered and you like your insurance, you can keep it”
So it may come as a surprise to Michiganders that now Peters is running from the same law he was so proud of:

"The law is not perfect... I've never voted on a perfect law, never will vote on a perfect law, and so you have to go back and constantly refine it."
What could have caused Gary Peters' change of heart on Obamacare?

Perhaps it was a recent poll showing 54 percent of Michiganders oppose Obamacare?

Meanwhile the most recent poll by Mitchell Research show Gary Peters trailing Terri Lynn Land by 6 points. On the fundraising front, Peters has been out raised by Land...again.

To boil it down: Gary Peters’ lack of credibility is a growing problem for Democrats, and they're growing more nervous by the day – with good reason.

Michigan women, seniors, families and workers know that Gary Peters has been a rubberstamp for President Obama and has been dishonest with them from Obamacare to spending increases. As a result, Michiganders no longer trust him to keep his word.

Gary Peters has a big problem ahead of him.

Help Republicans stay on offense against the liberal Obama/Peters agenda. Sign the petition today.

Sign Petition

Bill Murphy | April 22, 2014 |
For months Democrats have signaled to the political world of their intent to have their campaigns attempt to scare and divide by focusing on the so-called, "War on Women."

Putting aside the offensive nature of such a campaign, it is important to remember that Democrats lost white women in 2010 by 19 points.

It's not a coincidence that they also lost control of the House of Representatives and six seats in the Senate in the process.

Despite their strategy, there's one little fact that Democrats in Washington failed to consider with their "War on Women" strategy: strong Republican women candidates who are rallying voters to the conservative cause.

George Will recently wrote that Terri Lynn Land in Michigan "may be the GOP’s best answer to the war on women."

He's onto something.

Just this morning, Matt Lewis wrote in the Daily Caller,

"Terri Lynn Land — the former Michigan secretary of state who’s running in what has become a highly-competitive race for the U.S. Senate — is out with a fun new ad, titled, 'Really?' In it, the female candidate pokes fun at the suggestion that she’s waging a 'war on women.' 'Think about that for a moment,' Land gibes, before ultimately concluding that '[A]s a woman, I might know a little bit more about women than [Democratic Rep.] Gary Peters.'"
Terri Lynn Land is not alone, there's a strong field of Republican women in 2014.

Pollster Kristen Soltis Anderson recently noted that,

"Republican women are increasingly out front with their own vision for how best to address the issues facing women in the workplace."
Republican National Committee national press secretary Kirsten Kukowski has said that Republicans will be out in front of Democrats on the false 'war on women' attacks.

"Republicans have a good alternative to the Democrats’ deceptive war-on-women ploy, and we’re mobilizing to ensure Republican elected officials and candidates are armed. Democrats were successful in their war-on-women messaging last election because we didn’t fight back. We need to turn the table, tell voters the Democrats are being deceptive and bring our viewpoints to the table, which is exactly what we’re doing.” She added that the big difference this year is that Republicans will be “out in front of the Democrats on their messaging.”
The flaw in the Democrats' 'war on women' strategy is that they’re forgetting the millions of women who belong to the Republican Party who will speak out, the millions of independent women who aren't looking for cynicism, but hope.

They’re missing the fathers, husbands, and sons who believe that women deserve real solutions.

Voters - especially women - are smarter than Democrats are giving them credit for. That's why their strategy is doomed to fail.

Help Republicans win in 2014. Donate today.

Donate Now

Brook Hougesen | April 22, 2014 |
"It's hard to defend," said MSNBC's Mika Brzezinski of the Administration's latest Keystone Pipeline delay.

Last Friday was another blatant political news dump by the Obama White House. It was bad policy, bad for jobs, bad for American competitiveness and energy development.

It was good for one Democratic billionaire mega donor, Tom Steyer. You may remember him as the benefactor to whom Harry Reid rented the Senate floor last month.

Tom Rogan at National Review writes:

"The White House has spent years sending Keystone XL through the paperwork wringer. Still, the motivation for this latest deferral is obvious. It’s a midterm-election payoff, intended specifically for Tom Steyer, a retired hedge-fund manager who has pledged to raise $100 million for anti-Keystone candidates. In short, facing the prospect of a Republican Senate, Obama has decided that governance can wait until November."
A Wall Street Journal editorial picks up on that theme, noting,

"The real reason for the delay is Democratic politics. ...The hedge-fund politico has pledged to raise $100 million to help Democrats keep the Senate, and on Friday he received a major return on his investment when the State Department again delayed its decision on the Keystone XL pipeline. Mr. Steyer and the party's liberal financiers are climate-change absolutists who have made killing Keystone a non-negotiable demand. But the White House doesn't want to reject the pipeline before November because several Senate Democrats running for re-election claim to favor it. We say 'claim' because Louisiana's Mary Landrieu and others can't even get Majority Leader Harry Reid to give them a vote on the floor."
The WSJ's point about Mary Landrieu and vulnerable red state Democrats is an important one to note. Landrieu has been telling anyone who will listen how influential she is as the new Chairman of the Energy Committee. It turns out that Landrieu isn't influential at all. Though she does seem quite talented at writing strongly worded letters for Harry Reid and Barack Obama proceed to ignore.

Landrieu isn't alone. The Keystone delay reinforces how ineffective Senators like Mark Begich, Mark Udall, Mark Pryor, Mark Warner and Kay Hagan are.

Just a week before the President's announcement, these Senators "urged" President Obama to approve Keystone. A plea which he blatantly and publicly ignored.

It's clear that Harry Reid and Democrats tasked with holding the Senate have made the political calculation that Tom Steyer's $100 million is necessary this fall.

However, the cost of that $100 million is steep, and could result in the loss of a vulnerable Democrats like Mary Landrieu.

Think of it this way: In a state like Louisiana, six of ten voters oppose President Obama. Why would any of them vote for Mary Landrieu, who on average supports President Obama 97% of the time? It's clear she is powerless to do anything on the rare occasion where she claims to disagree with White House policy.

Americans have had enough of the liberal Obama/Reid. Sign the petition and help us put a stop to it this November.

Sign Petition

Bill Murphy | April 21, 2014 |
Alison Lundergan Grimes, Michelle Nunn, Natalie Tennant, Gary Peters and Bruce Braley have a big problem.

Politico is reporting that Democrats in Washington are so worried about the November election. They are on defense and forced to spend their resources trying to save their incumbents.

In other words, they are going to be keeping the promises made to recruited candidates.

As Mike Allen told the gang on Morning Joe,

"If you are one of those up-in-coming challengers, if you are one of those people who were recruited and the party said, 'you'd be a great candidate, we'll be with you every step of the way,' they're now having trouble getting resources."
It's simple math: there are many more vulnerable incumbents than Democrats expected. They can't waste valuable time and resources on longshot candidates like Grimes, Nunn, Tennant or poor performers like Bruce Braley and Gary Peters. If they did, they'd have to cut off funds for Kay Hagan, Mary Landrieu or Mark Pryor.

This is because Republicans continue to run a spread offense to keep Democrats back on their heels.

As CNN reports this morning,

"...Republicans have expanded the 2014 playing field with five more contested races as the GOP seeks to retake control of the chamber. In a memo released to consultants Friday morning, NRSC political director Ward Baker writes that Republicans have become competitive in Colorado, New Hampshire, Virginia, Oregon and Minnesota since the start of the year. That's in addition to nearly 10 Senate seats the NRSC has been aggressively targeting. ...As for the other two states that are 'expanding' the map for Republicans, the NRSC cites polling that shows Democratic Sen. Jeff Merkley in Oregon and Sen. Al Franken in Minnesota are more vulnerable than expected."
Help Republicans stay on offense. Donate to the 51st vote fund today.

Donate Now

Bill Murphy | April 18, 2014 |

How desperate is the White House to maintain control of the Senate? Desperate enough to reduce the President to trolling.

As Major Garrett explained, the President is purposefully overstating his case (and in some cases lying). He knows that it will create controversy.

CBS Political Director John Dickerson breaks it down: the President is trolling.

"Under this approach, a president wants the fact-checkers to call him out (again and again) because that hubbub keeps the issue in the news, which is good for promoting the issue to the public. It is the political equivalent of there is no such thing as bad publicity."
Put another way,

"Obama’s twist is a new, higher order of deception: creating the controversy for the purposes of milking it."
Deception isn't a word that most would want associated with them, yet President Obama's team thrives and depends on it.

Dickerson continues,

"We are in a campaign year in which Democrats are struggling to find an issue they can use as a weapon against Republicans who have the upper hand... Facts, schmacts. As long as people are talking about an issue where my party has an advantage with voters, it’s good. ..Democrats have several reasons to keep stories about equal-pay equity in the news. It excites their voters, attracts female voters, and crowds out whatever the Republicans wanted to talk about (these days, Obamacare). It also sets a trap. The more Republicans have to talk about politically unfavorable issues, the greater chance they'll slip up and say something dumb like candidates Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock did that can be exploited more broadly."
Now you know why candidates like Mark Pryor, Gary Peters, Mark Udall and Mark Begich are following the President's lead. They're lying about the facts to create coverage about anything but the issues that voters care most about.

As you might guess, lying to voters to create controversy comes at a price. A new Fox News poll shows

"...Six in ten American voters think Barack Obama lies to the country on important matters some or most of the time. Thirty-seven percent think Obama lies “most of the time,” while another 24 percent say he lies “some of the time.” Twenty percent of voters say “only now and then.”
Likewise, Democratic Senators and candidates in battleground states have seen their unfavorablility skyrocket. Turns out that people don't appreciate their elected officials lying to them.

For some time now, we've said that Democrats on the ballot have a credibility problem.

Credibility and competence. It's a huge political problem, and vulnerable Democrats know it.

Lying and trolling isn't going to help. Don't feed the trolls; focus on the issues people care about.

Sign the petition and tell Democrats you've had enough of the liberal agenda.

Sign Petition

Bill Murphy | April 17, 2014 |
Paid for by the National Republican Senatorial Committee.
Not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee. www.NRSC.org
Paid for by the National Republican Senatorial Committee. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee. www.NRSC.org