EMILY's List Starting To Wise Up In New Hampshire Gubernatorial Race?

Jackie Cilley & the ConservaDem EMILY's List candidate

Last time I wrote about this race, there was such a commotion from a Hassan staffer that it made me want to stop writing about the race. But, of course, that's exactly what they wanted. So... be careful of the craziness and incivility about to ensue in the comments section.

All things being equal-- or even quasi-equal-- EMILY's List always opts for the more conservative Big Money-oriented candidate in primaries. That's what the once proud progressive organization has degenerated into since becoming a mainstay of DC's contemptible Village. But-- perhaps because of pressures external to the company that they feel could hurt their unending fundraising-- EMILY's List looks like it may be backing away, a teensy-weensy bit, from one of its lamer endorsements of the cycle, Liebermanoid "centrist" Maggie Hassan in New Hampshire's gubernatorial race. Many EMILY's List women in New Hampshire aren't pleased that they picked Hassan over the more progressive (and stronger) candidate, Jackie Cilley.

Earlier this week saw a couple of pretty big union announce they are backing Cilley. Joining the SEIU, the state's largest safety forces unions (New England Police Benevolent Association and the Professional Fire Fighters of New Hampshire) endorsed her over "No Labels"/EMILY's List ConservaDem Maggie Hassan.

One of the things we don't like so much about Hassan-- and feel disqualifies her for the Governor's job-- was her willingness to sign a right-wing tax pledge. But lost among the news of labor increasingly lining up behind Jackie Cilley were a couple of articles that suggested that EMILY's List is cutting their losses in New Hampshire and dumping Hassan.
 
Wednesday, EMILY's List put out a polling memo that found, unsurprisingly, that 52% of the voting public (women) might just have a significant impact on this Fall's election. Having come to grips with this stupendous news, I read further in the polling memo and a subsequent ForbesWoman piece about this and other polls.
 
What we found was fascinating. The poll, conducted Democratic pollster Lisa Grove, took the pulse of independent female voters across 13 EMILY’s List battleground states: Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Florida.
 
The reason they are polling in some of these states is obvious. Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, Wisconsin, Iowa, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida are all either routinely or often pointed to as swing states. Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Minnesota-- all pretty D and not very swingy-- have Senate races in which EMILY's List is heavily invested. But where's New Hampshire?
 
Everyone from the New York Times to Limbaugh agrees that the Granite State will be swingy, indeed, it represents Romney's only real chance to pick up electoral votes east of the Hudson. A stack of public polls since April have shown that, in spite of outspending Cilley 5-to-one, Hassan been unable to establish a lead, essentially tying Cilley in spite of her institutional advantages. One might, especially if one were considering spending money in a race like this, suspect that Maggie Hassan doesn't have what it takes to win this thing.
 
EMILY's List's work with Hassan hasn't exactly set the world on fire. A visit to Netroots Nation with Stephanie Shriock garnered almost no blog attention at all and her events with big-deal guests like Ms. Shriock and retiring Washington Governor Christine Gregoire, another highly unpopular ConservaDem, have been low-key sparsely-attended affairs. Who knows? Maybe someone over at EMILY's List is starting to understand the folly of throwing good money after bad. While Hassan been trying to attach No Labels to herself, perhaps the only one that will stick is "loser."