“Weak”! “Horrible”! “No Energy”! Republicans Have Some Amazing Insults for Their Own Candidates.

It’s easier than facing the truth.

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

On Tuesday, voters in Pennsylvania’s 18th congressional district will choose a replacement for disgraced former Rep. Tim Murphy, a pro-life Republican who resigned from Congress last year after allegedly pressuring his mistress to get an abortion. The 18th district is heavily Republicanā€”President Donald Trump carried it by nearly 20 pointsā€”and the fact that Democrat Conor Lamb, an ex-Marine and former prosecutor, even has a shot at defeating GOP state Sen. Rick Saccone has set off some alarm bells in Washington. But rest assured, Republicans think they know what the problem is:

ā€œ[He’s] run a horrible campaign. Hasnā€™t raised much money, his ads are abysmalā€”no energy,ā€ aā€¦Republican operative said, on condition of anonymity in order to speak candidly. ā€œItā€™s a low turnout special and weird things happen.ā€

Wait, I’m sorry. That’s actually a GOP operative trashing now-Rep. Ron Estes’ campaign last year in an interview with the Washington Examiner. Estes, a Republican, ultimately won a surprisingly close special election against a Bernie Sanders-backed progressive in Kansas’ deep-red 4th congressional district. Back to Saccone:

One senior Republican strategist warned that, based on the partyā€™s performance in special elections so far, if Republicans ā€œcannot come up with better candidates and better campaigns, this cycle is going to be even worse than anybody ever thought it could be.ā€

Never mind, that’s actually a Republican operative trashing now-Rep. Greg Gianforte to Politico ahead of last May’s special election in Montana. Gianforte narrowly beat Democrat Rob Quist, despite choke-slamming a reporter and lying about it to the police. We were talking about Pennsylvania:

With the election still days away, some Republicans are already pointing fingersā€¦In the White House, some officials have privately derided [the candidate] as a frequent candidate for public office who isnā€™t the kind of fresh face necessary to win.

Oh, sorry. That’s the White House panning now-Rep. Karen Handel in Politico ahead of last June’s special election in Georgia’s 6th congressional district, a GOP-leaning seat where Handel narrowly beat Democrat Jon Ossoff in the most expensive House race in history.

But seriously, on to Pennsylvania. The knives really are out for Saccone. Politico, citing interviews with “nearly two dozen administration officials, senior House Republicans and top party strategists,” reported last week that “Saccone was nearly universally panned as a deeply underwhelming candidate who leaned excessively on the national party to execute a massive, multimillion-dollar rescue effort.” And evidently those top Republican officials include Trump, who, Axios reported, has privately trashed Saccone as “weak.”

“Weak”! That’s not something the White House says about just anyoneā€”unless they’re a Republican running in a special election in the last 12 months, in which case it’s what they say about literally everyone.

Saccone has struggled with fundraising; Estes did run a ridiculous ad; Handel was a repeat candidate; and Gianforte really was vulnerable to attacks about his record on public lands. (Did we mention that he assaulted a reporter and lied about it?) But what those four candidates have in common isn’t a uniquely lousy campaign styleā€”the halls of Congress are filled with mediocre politicians who simply don’t need to be very good candidates. Rather, it’s the environment they’re running in right now. Saccone is in a close race because the fundamentals of national politics have changed so dramatically from where they were in 2016 that an uncompetitive district where Democrats hadn’t fielded a candidate for two consecutive elections could very possibly flip.

It’s a terrifying thought for Republicans. With the midterms creeping ever closer, they won’t be able to pin their problems on lousy special-election candidates forever.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate