I would agree with the argument that a candidate and their staffs must be the principal providers of a campaign's support. I accept responsibility for the role and scope I played in the 2010 Polito for Treasurer Campaign. We all made some mistakes and will try to learn from them.
However, as per published reports, I am trying to reconcile two recent statements that seem to be at odds with each other: The Boston Herald quoted the Mass GOP Chair as saying, “the party chair has nothing to do with the candidate's loss.” But, compare that statement to a recent Chairman’s letter, which states that “…as chairman, the decisions on expending resources were ultimately (the Chair’s) responsibility.”
Well, which is it? Many GOP activists would assert, and the polling and elections results reveal, that expending resources on a campaign does indeed have something to do with a candidates chances on Election Day. Further, many activists believed that a supplemental infusion of direct financial assistance could have benefitted our campaign. One has to wonder, would an extra $50,000+, as outlined in the sample support formula at www.NewMassPlaybook.com, as an example, been enough to support other statewide candidates to victory?
Lastly, why did certain losing legislative candidates in the 2010 cycle receive significant amounts of direct financial support – while the two open-seat, Auditor and Treasurer offices received zero dollars? Was this part of the Mass GOP's plan? Where is their plan?
There is a NewMassPlaybook that outlines a way forward to victory.