National Democrats snub New Hampshire’s Carol Shea-Porter

  The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) has identified 39 vulnerable House Democrats and has begun reserving $28 million in ads to help these beleaguered Democrats win re-election.

  My congressman, New Hampshire Representative Carol Shea-Porter, is considered to be a very vulnerable Democrat– her approval rating is extremely low and polls show her losing to her likely Republican opponent in November, Frank Guinta– yet the DCCC has decided not to spend any of that $28 million on Carol Shea-Porter.

  While the DCCC states that just because they have not bought any commercial airtime to defend Carol Shea-Porter in this first round of advertisement buying, that does not mean they will not be coming to her defense at some point during the campaign. Still, this has to be a little disheartening to Carol Shea-Porter as she is in the fight for her political life and could certainly use the help of the DCCC.

  The question is why has the DCCC shunned Carol Shea-Porter to this point? There is the possibility that the DCCC is  holding back while the top Republican candidates do battle with each other. Perhaps they feel the money could best be used elsewhere while the Republican candidates tear each other apart. In other words, perhaps they feel that the Republican candidates will do an acceptable enough job hurting each other so the DCCC feels they can hold off for now. Maybe the plan is to wait until Carol Shea-Porters opponent is known before beginning to run ads in support of Carol Shea-Porter.

  Or perhaps the DCCC feels that Carol Shea-Porter’s re-election bid is a lost cause because she does represent the more conservative district in New Hampshire. I honestly believe that Carol Shea-Porter is going to lose this November and I wonder if internal polling by the DCCC shows that she is in grave trouble.

  The old gambler’s saying goes, you have to know when to hold them and know when to fold them. Perhaps the DCCC has decided to fold the hand they were dealt in New Hampshire’s first district.