Debunking An Election Myth

For a long time, the National Rifle Association has perpetuated the myth that it plays an unbeatable role in U.S. elections through its endorsement of gun-friendly candidates and financial contributions to their campaigns.

The NRA announced, prior to the election, that 2008 was "arguably the most important year" in its 137 year history.  It predicted that Barack Obama, who was endorsed by the Brady Campaign, would be the most anti-gun president in American history.  It endorsed its own preferred candidates for the House and Senate (rated "A" by the NRA) and it opposed Brady-endorsed candidates.

What Actually Happened?

The NRA myth was debunked this year, as in previous years, by the success of candidates who support sensible gun laws and who were endosed by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

Presidency:  Obama/Biden beat McCain/Palin by 52 to 46 percent and won in many states where there are large proportions of gun-owners such as Virginia, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Indiana, New Mexico, Colorado, and Nevada.  In the 13 states where the NRA ran ads related to the presidential election, Obama/Biden won in 11.  The NRA spent $6.9 million on its ads, a healthy loss for its lobbying budget.

Senate: 100 percent of the candidates endorsed by Brady won.  In head-on contests between Brady-endorsed candidates and NRA-endorsed candidates, Brady candidates won 100 percent of the seats.  

House of Representatives: 90 percent of the candidates endorsed by Brady won.  In head-on contests between Brady-endorsed candidates and NRA-endorsed candidates, Brady candidates won 84 percent of the seats.  

State Races: in Senate races, 95 percent of the candidates endorsed by Brady won.  In House/Assembly races, 90 percent of the candidates endorsed by Brady won.

Disappearance of the Single Issue Gun Voter

A large part of the NRA's past claim to fame has been that NRA supporters are single issue voters who vote solely on the basis of candidates' positions on guns.  There was no evidence of single-issue gun voting in 2008, or even in 2006, a non-presidential election year.

What Does This All Mean?

First, it means, based on Brady election victories, that the next couple of years should be good ones for passing sensible gun laws.  A first step would be to close the gun show loophole which allows gun purchasers in some states to buy guns at gun shows without going through a background check.  A second step would be banning the sale of assault weapons.  Such a ban was in effect for ten years but when the law expired, the Bush Administration opposed its renewal.  A third step would be to prohibit people on terrorist watch lists from purchasing guns.  All of these measures have the support of more than 75 percent of the U.S. population.

Second, it means politicians should stop running scared of the NRA.  They can safely join forces for passage pf laws that will prevent gun violence without worrying about negative political consequences.  Let's challenge them to do so.

Please get out there and share the news -- it's time to dispel the NRA myth forever.

P.S.  I am not an unbiased blogger.  I was just selected as the President of the California Chapters of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, so you can expect many more blogs on the subject of guns.