Guilty of dismal fundraising, NRCC spent whatever money it had well

November 21, 2008

Oklahoma Rep. Tom Cole briefly flirted with another stint as NRCC Chairman but decided not to oppose the candidacy of Texas Rep. Pete Sessions. The GOP’s campaign committee will thus start the 2010 battle with new leadership, eager to recover after two disastrous cycles that saw Democrats pick up more than 50 seats.

To mark the end of Cole’s rule, it seems appropriate to take a look back at the past two years - recruitment, fundraising, expenditures - and pinpoint a few areas Sessions will have to improve.

—

What is particularly depressing for the GOP is that its recruitment was not that terrible. For one, the NRCC had managed to recruit a number of top challengers to freshmen incumbents: Jim Sullivan in CT-02, Dean Adler in CA-11 or Tom Bee in AZ-08 were all highly touted early in the cycle. Lou Barletta in PA-11, Melissa Hart in PA-04, Mike Sodrel in IN-09, Anne Northup in KY-03 and Jeb Bradley in NH-01 were also huge threats. The NRCC similarly fielded unexpectedly strong contenders in many GOP-held open seats (Darren White in NM-01, for instance).

Needless to say, all the candidates on this list lost on November 4th; some of them had even completely disappeared from our radar screen - quite a stunning development given their early high-profile. Given the pro-Democratic political environment, however, non-incumbent Republicans had practically no hope of victory - and we all treated them as such.

—

The NRCC’s huge problem, of course, was its dismal fundraising performance that left the committee in an extremely precarious financial position. This forced the NRCC to pull the plug on some of its top challengers and then make even more painful decisions as to which incumbents it should abandon. It will not be easy for Sessions to do a better job: It is extremely unlikely that Republicans will regain control of the House in 2010, which means that lobbyists and donors are likely to keep filling Democratic coffers. This should guarantee that the DCCC enjoys yet another cycle of financial dominance.

—

Within this context of budgetary restrictions, it is worth taking a look at the NRCC’s fall expenditures to test whether Cole’s team made the right set of choices with whatever little money they had in hand.

The snubbed districts: First of all, here is the list of high-profile districts in which the NRCC invested nothing: AZ-03, CT-04, CA-04, IL-10, IN-09, KY-03, MD-01, MI-09, NC-08, NM-01, NM-02, OH-16, OR-05, PA-04. It is worth adding CO-04 to the list, as the NRCC pulled the plug on Rep. Musgrave two weeks before the election.

Some of these reflect very good calls on the NRCC’s part, particularly in AZ-03. Democrats made a lot of noise about that race, and the DCCC poured in about $2 million; yet, the NRCC did not take the bait and Rep. Shadegg prevailed by double-digits. Similarly, the NRCC was right to estimate that Reps. Knollenberg, Hayes and Musgrave as well as open seat candidates in NM-01, NM-02 and OH-16 were in particularly bad shape. Democrats picked-up all of these seats, and none of them were close. Finally, good for the NRCC to not delude itself into thinking that it could defeat Democratic incumbents in KY-03, IN-09 and PA-04.

However, the GOP’s refusal to fund McClintock in CA-04 and Harris in MD-01 was most definitely a mistake. Harris lost by 1% and McClintock’s race is still undecided. Both districts are heavily conservative, so there was no possible blow back for national Republicans getting involved (unlike, say, in CT-04).

Defensible investments: As for the races they did fund, the NRCC’s decisions are a mix between golden investments and wasted money. While the GOP lost AL-02, AL-05, FL-08, FL-25, ID-01, MI-07, NH-01, NJ-03, NY-29, OH-01, PA-03, PA-11, VA-02 and WI-08, for instance, it seems hard to argue with the NRCC’s determination to defend these seats, all of which ended up being relatively close. The NRCC should however be faulted for not having invested more in some of them (ID-01 and VA-02, in particular). In some of these districts, the GOP invested significant sums (more than $1 million each in MI-07 and OH-01, for instance) but the DCCC simply had enough money to always outspend its counterpart.

Similarly, the NRCC’s decision to heavily defend KY-02, MN-03, MO-09, NE-02, NJ-07 and WY-AL were an important factor in huge Election Day saves - and the committee’s investments in KS-02, LA-06 and TX-22 (more than $1 million in the latter) helped Republican challengers scored pick-ups. (The NRCC should have been a bit more aggressive in Kansas, even though Lynn Jenkins did end up winning.)

Mistakes: All in all, there were few obvious mistakes in the GOP’s investments - except the largely unnecessary $600,000 spent in MO-06, the decision to go after Rep. Murtha with half-a-million dollars at the last minute and the committee’s determination to help Rep. Porter in NV-03. Another small mistake was CO-04: Even though they did end up abandoning Rep. Musgrave, they first spent nearly $900,000 on a seat that leaned towards a Democratic pick-up early in the fall - but perhaps not enough to justify an NRCC snub in a what is still a conservative district.

The NRCC is guilty of a number of other miscalls, but it is hard to blame them given that the DCCC also miscalculated in the same same districts. Perhaps the biggest such mistake occurred in NY-24, where Democratic incumbent Arcuri won an extremely tight race in a district absolutely no one was paying attention to.

The second biggest mistake was FL-21, a GOP-held district everyone thought was highly competitive and in which the NRCC spent more than $1.5 million. Rep. Diaz-Balart ended up winning by 16% - but the DCCC had invested considerable sums as well, as both parties believed that Diaz-Balart was endangered. Similarly, the GOP spent more than $300,000 defending IN-03 and more than $600,000 in NY-26. Neither race was tight on Election Night; yet, the DCCC wasted much more money on those two districts so the mistake here belongs to Democrats.

Finally, the NRCC rushed into VA-05 much too late, spending more $140,000 at the last minute to save Rep. Goode (the race has not been called yet, but it appears that Goode will go down by a few hundred votes); few people saw Perriello has a big threat to Goode - and the DCCC’s expenditures suggest they had not either. Provided he remains in the lead, that makes Perriello’s into this cycle’s Shea-Porter and Loebsack.

No Comments » | AL-02, AL-05, AZ-03, AZ-08, CA-04, CA-11, CO-04, CT-02, CT-04, FL-08, FL-21, FL-25, ID-01, IL-10, IN-03, IN-09, KY-02, KY-03, LA-06, MD-01, MI-07, MI-09, MN-03, MO-06, MO-09, NC-08, NE-02, NH-01, NJ-03, NJ-07, NM-01, NM-02, NRCC, NV-03, NY-24, NY-26, NY-29, OH-01, OH-16, OR-05, PA-03, PA-11, TX-22, VA-02, VA-05, WI-08, WY-AL | Permalink
Posted by Taniel

NRCC’s new expenditures boost defense, play some offense

October 30, 2008

As expected, the NRCC posted most of their expenditures after the first round of spending I documented yesterday morning, and their decisions on where to spend money over the final week offers us a wealth of information on which districts Republicans thinks are still winnable, which they are resigned to losing, and which they are feeling some confidence in. Meanwhile, new expenditures posted by the DCCC confirm Democratic determination to expand the map.

First, Democrats are not giving up and Republicans are not feeling overconfident in two of the most endangered Dem-held seats: TX-22 and PA-11. Both are rated lean take-over in my latest ratings, but both parties are heavily investing. The NRCC poured more than $700,000 against Rep. Nick Lampson in Texas (bringing its total to more than $1 million) and more than $270,000 against Rep. Paul Kanjorski in Pennsylvania. Both districts have appeared to be gone for months now, so it is somewhat puzzling that the DCCC has not abandoned these incumbents; it just spent $600,000 in Texas (for a total of $1 million) and more than $200,000 in Pennsylvania (for a total of $2.3 million).

The NRCC played offense in a few more districts, spending more than $300,000 in KS-02 and LA-06 and around $100,000 in AL-05 and WI-08. The rest was devoted to defense: $506,000 was just spent in WA-08 (bringing the total above $1 million), more than $400,000 in FL-25 and MI-07 (bringing the total in the latter to $1.5 million), more than $300,000 on in FL-08, NJ-07, OH-15, more than $200,000 in NY-29, MN-03 and OH-02, and more than $100,000 in AL-02, ID-01, NJ-03, PA-03 and VA-02. (Note that the NRCC had already reported six figure buys yesterday in WY-AL, NE-02, IN-03, MO-06 and MO-09).

A few notes about these districts: This is the NRCC’s first ad buy in FL-08, a seat that I recently moved to the lean take-over category - albeit the race remains highly competitive. The DCCC just released its first ad for the race yesterday, meaning that both committees are moving in Orlando for a last-minute push. Furthermore, it is fascinating to see which highly endangered open seats the NRCC is contesting and which it is not: OH-15, NJ-07 and NJ-03 at one point looked like they would be easily Democratic pick-ups, but the GOP candidates have proved resilient and the NRCC is providing some help; open seats candidates in OH-16 or NM-01 have been completely abandoned. As for Erik Paulsen, he can thank Michelle Bachmann for her anti-Americanism rant, as that led the NRCC to move resources out of MN-06 and into MN-03.

In fact, even more interesting than the seats in which the NRCC is spending are the seats in which they are not: Given the NRCC’s budgetary constraints, they cannot afford to spend on seats in which there isn’t a very clear and accessible path to victory. As had already been reported but not yet confirmed, the NRCC is spending no new money in CO-04, all but abandoning Rep. Musgrave; there also appear to be no new ads in NV-03 and NH-01, which is more of a surprise. The NRCC’s new buy in KY-02 is two thirds smaller than it was the previous week, which is probably more of a sign of confidence than of despair. And the NRCC has still spent no money whatsoever in a number of highly competitive seats: AZ-03, IL-10, IL-11, FL-24, MD-01, NC-08 or NM-01, for instance. (The DCCC has spent more than $1 million in each of these districts.)

Meanwhile, the DCCC’s latest spree lavishes resources on two top contenders - Darcy Burner gets more than half-a-million in WA-08 and Kathy Dahlkemper gets almost $400,000 (for a total of more than $2 million) in PA-03. But as noticeable are the DCCC’s expenditures in long-shot districts in which they only started investing last week: $350,000 goes to VA-02, almost $300,000 to VA-05, to WV-02 and to WY-AL. Smaller sums go to playing defense in OR-05 and PA-10.

Not all publicity is good publicity, however. A day after Elizabeth Dole provoked the type of firestorm that is very likely to backfire with her ad “accusing” Kay Hagan of atheism, Minnesota’s GOP is facing similar bad press over allegations that they darkened the skin of Democratic candidate and Indian-American Ashwin Madia (MN-03). Such charges are unlikely to cause much movement if they remain topics of discussion on blogs, but at least one TV station devoted a segment to this in their local news (watch video here), getting independent experts to confirm that images of Madia were in fact darkened. Paulsen’s campaign got in trouble earlier this fall for insisting that Madia did not “fit the demographics” of the district, in what serves as a reminder that the presidential race could have gotten far uglier. [Update: Politico's Reid Wilson is far more skeptical of Democratic complaints than that TV station.]

In MN-06, finally, the DCCC’s second ad hitting Michelle Bachmann once again makes no mention of the anti-Americanism controversy - nor does it need to, since the comments have already gotten wide play in the district. What Democrats now need to do is convince voters that Bachmann is extremist on substantive issues as well, and for the second ad in a row the DCCC is focusing on one issue: regulation.

In the other district in which an incumbent’s recent words have gravely endangered his reelection prospects, the NRCC has released a very hard hitting ad against Rep. Jack Murtha (PA-12), playing footage of his declaring that Western Pennsylvania is “racist” and “redneck” to make the case that Murtha does not “respect us:”

Murtha and Bachmann’s races both appear to have turned into highly competitive seats over the past two weeks. Will they balance themselves out on Election Day? Given his seniority and the fact that he is a very entrenched incumbent, Murtha is far more likely to survive than his opponent - though he certainly is not helping himself.

1 Comment | AL-02, AL-05, AZ-03, CO-04, FL-08, FL-24, FL-25, ID-01, IL-10, IL-11, KS-02, KY-02, LA-06, MD-01, MI-07, MN-03, MN-06, NC-08, NH-01, NJ-03, NJ-07, NM-01, NV-03, NY-29, OH-02, OH-15, OR-05, PA-03, PA-10, PA-11, PA-12, TX-22, VA-02, VA-05, WA-08, WI-08, WV-02, WY-AL | Permalink
Posted by Taniel

DCCC goes on one of its last spending sprees

October 29, 2008

With a week remaining before Election Day, all campaigns and national committees are budgeting their final advertising push and buying media time to last them through November 4th. The DCCC has poured in nearly $15 million in almost 40 districts already this week. More investments are likely to come today and tomorrow, first because the DCCC has left out a number of districts in which it regularly invests and because it appears that the NRCC has yet to make its last round of expenditures. But the DCCC’s $14 million latest spending spree gives us a good idea of which seats Democrats are the most committed to. (Most of the following numbers come from SSP’s always very handy House expenditure tracker.)

In three districts did the DCCC go for broke; all are currently held by the GOP: In IL-10, the DCCC just poured in an impressive $929,279, bringing its total investment in the district to more than $2 million. (This is partly explained by the fact that IL-10 is in the expensive Chicago market). In NV-03, the DCCC bought more than $750,000 of air time against Rep. Porter, bringing its total to more than $2.3 million. And in IL-11, $600,000 worth of advertisement (and a total that surpasses $2 million) should help Debbie Halvorson win this open seat.

Another group of seats - here again predominantly GOP-held - saw massive investments of more than $500,000. Those include the once-safe AZ-03, NC-08, NH-01, NM-01, OH-15 (the total surpasses $2 million in each of these five districts), MN-06 (the DCCC has now spent more than $1 million in two weeks on Bachmann’s seat) and the conservative NM-02 (for a total of $1.5 million). This makes New Hampshire’s Carol Shea-Porter the most protected Democratic incumbent, and confirms the remarkable development by which the DCCC has poured more effort in AZ-03 than in many seats that were more obviously competitive.

Also notable are the DCCC’s expenditures that top $400,000. Here again the list is made up of Republican seats: MD-01, MN-03 and OH-01 (total spending in each now tops $2 million), MI-07 and MI-09 (total spending in each tops $1 million), CA-04 and NY-26. Between $200,000 and $400,000, we have AZ-01 (an open seat that is considered an easy Democratic pick-up but where the DCCC has now spent more than $2 million), CO-04, KY-02, MO-09, FL-24 (all now more than $1 million total), FL-21, FL-25, NE-02, OH-02, NY-29, FL-08, IN-03 and IN-09. Rounding up six-figure expenditures are AK-AL, CA-11, CT-04, LA-06, NJ-03 and NJ-07 (all more than $1 million total), AL-05, ID-01, KS-02.

A few observations about this spending spree. First, the DCCC did not expand the map this week. The only new seat they invested in yesterday is FL-08, a district that has looked highly competitive for weeks and that I just moved to the lean take-over category this past week-end. Also noteworthy is NE-02, where the DCCC’s media buy this week is eight times higher than it was last week. However, there are a number of districts we have been talking about lately in which the DCCC is not playing despite the massive loan it took last week; those include California’s seats, IA-04, FL-13, FL-18 or even SC-01 where the DCCC has not followed up on a small investment it made last week. Furthermore, the national committee appears to have given up on MO-06, which was once considered a top opportunity but in which the DCCC has not bought air time for two weeks now.

Second, Democrats seem to be very comfortable about playing defense. They have largely pulled out of AZ-05, AZ-08 or MS-01, all districts that the GOP had high hopes of contesting; they have not had to spend a dime in places like KS-03 or NY-20, seats Republicans had vowed to contest. And they do not seem to feel particular energy in many of the blue seats in which they are investing. However, we do know that the DCCC is starting to air this ad in PA-12 on behalf of Murtha, though they have yet to report that expenditure.

The NRCC, meanwhile, posted a few expenditures over the past two days though a lot more should come tonight. Noteworthy investments include $375,000 spent in WY-AL, more than $250,000 in NE-02 and MO-09, more than $100,000 in MO-06, IN-03. What do all these districts have in common? They are extremely heavily Republican (Bush won IN-03 with 68% of the vote, for instance, and let us not even talk about WY-AL) and Republican candidates are in such a bad state that the NRCC is forced to spend its money in such districts.

(There is something to be said against the NRCC’s decision making, and we might talk about this more in the coming week: Swing seats like NM-01 or OH-16 will likely be lost for a decade or more if Democrats pick them up, yet the NRCC is not spending a dime there. Conservative seats like WY-AL or IN-03 would be likely to fall back into GOP hands in the coming cycle or two, but the NRCC is spending all of its resources in such places.)

Let’s take a closer look at Southern Florida, where the battles in FL-21 and in FL-25 have become truly vicious. Both seats are in the same Miami media market, and they are represented by the (Republican) Diaz-Balart brothers. So Democrats have decided to save money - and just air an ad targeting both Diaz-Balarts:

The GOP’s response in FL-25 is also fascinating because it bears such a close resemblance to what is going on in the presidential race. Democratic candidate Joe Garcia is blasted for being in favor of “redistribution of the wealth,” underscoring how much Republicans are banking on Joe the Plumber at this point:

2 Comments | AK-AL, AL-05, AZ-01, AZ-03, AZ-05, CA-04, CA-11, CO-04, CT-04, FL-08, FL-13, FL-18, FL-21, FL-24, FL-25, IA-04, ID-01, IL-10, IL-11, IN-03, IN-09, KS-02, KS-03, KY-02, LA-06, MD-01, MI-07, MI-09, MN-03, MN-06, MO-06, MO-09, MS-01, NC-08, NE-02, NH-01, NJ-03, NJ-07, NM-01, NM-02, NV-03, NY-20, NY-26, NY-29, OH-01, OH-02, OH-15, SC-01, WY-AL | Permalink
Posted by Taniel

Congress: NRCC spends money (!), Stevens trial enters final stage

October 22, 2008

Spending: After weeks of holding back on TV advertisements because of its meager budget, the NRCC finally unloaded over the past two days, buying more than $4 million worth of ads in a total of 20 districts. And some of these buys are quite large - perhaps unexpectedly so.

Over the past two days, the NRCC spent more than $400,000 in two red district (MN-03 and WA-08), $300,000 or more in CO-04, MI-07, NH-01 and PA-11, more than $200,000 in MO-09, NY-26, NY-29, OH-02 and OH-15, more than $100,000 in LA-06, MO-06, NJ-03, NJ-07, OH-01, PA-03 and WI-08 and less than $100,000 in AL-02 and AL-05. (Alabama media markets are inexpensive, so the NRCC’s spending those two districts is substantial.)

To this list should also be added districts in which the NRCC bought ad time at the end of last week, so that they will not have to invest more money to stay on air for a few more days. Those include: FL-21, ID-01, VA-02. Furthermore, Politico reports that the NRCC has just made expenditures it has not yet reported (and will likely do so by tonight) in three more districts, KY-02, IN-03 and NE-02 - three very conservative districts, the latter two of which were not expected to be competitive as of a month ago.

This spending offers a fascinating window into the GOP’s view of which blue seats are competitive and which red states are salvageable or deserve defending. Some omissions of vulnerable red seats continue to be glaring, particularly FL-24, NM-01, NC-08, NV-03, OH-16. That the NRCC is spending so much money helping Rep. Walberg in MI-07 while investing nothing in Rep. Knollenberg’s MI-09 is telling of the latter’s vulnerabilities. However, there are some surprises in the list.

The first is MN-03, the heated open seat in which the GOP has just poured in a huge amount of money: a week ago, the NRCC was reported to be moving out of the district and allocating that budget to MN-06 (Bachmann’s seat) instead. Clearly, the NRCC has since then decided that the district is still winnable. Similarly, Reps. Musgrave and Kuhl in CO-04 and NY-29 look to be trailing, so it is curious that the NRCC has decided to invest some of its limited expenditures into saving them. The calculation is surely that it is always easier to pull incumbents through rather than salvage open seats or help challengers.

Meanwhile, the DCCC posted far less expenditures yesterday than it usually does on Tuesday, including a strange omission of a number of seats in which it has been on air for weeks (the New Mexico, Ohio and New Jersey open seats, for instance). That suggests that there are still DCCC expenditures to come today, which will up the Democrats’ total (they have, after all, a lot of money to spend), but a few investments are very noteworthy.

The ease with which the DCCC invests amounts which appear prodigious when spent by the NRCC tells us all we need to know about the parties’ financial disparity. The DCCC just poured in a stunning $566K in IL-10. This is an extensive district to spend in because of the Chicago media market, certainly, but it is certainly a large buy - especially considering that Rep. Kirk appears to be gaining in recent polls. The committee spend more than $400,000 in NC-08, bringing its total investment in that district to nearly $2 million (the NRCC has spent nothing). The new spending is more than $300,000 in AZ-01, AZ-03, CO-04, MD-01 and almost reaches $200,000 in AL-02 (as I said, that is a lot of money to spend in an Alabama media market).

Given that nearly everyone has long expected AZ-01 to be among the easiest pick-ups for Democrats, it is somewhat bizarre that the DCCC is pouring that much money in the district, but that is their only defensive-looking move (if that can be said about a red district). Apart from that, the overall picture is as remarkable as last week: The NRCC is building a firewall in second-to-third tier seats while the DCCC is spending heavily on seats it should not even be thinking about: more than $700,000 of Democratic money spent in one day in AZ-03 and MD-01?! Who would have thought that would be possible just four weeks ago?

—

Alaska: Ted Stevens’s trial enters its final stage today, as the case will be handed to the jury which will start its deliberations. The always-useful Anchorage Daily News provides an overview of yesterday’s closing arguments - and through them a recap of what has happened in the trial over the past month. While Stevens’s defense made some important gains over the past month - in particular getting the judge to throw out some evidence - the trial’s last few days were not kind to the Alaska Senator. The government’s chief attorney got Stevens to lose his temper at times during his cross-examination, and she ridiculed his claim that a chair that had been in his house for seven years was a “loan” rather than “a gift.”

As soon as the jury returns, we shall have a much better idea of the dynamics of the race, as it is looking more likely every day that the trial’s verdict will also decide Stevens’ electoral fate. A new just-released Ivan Moore poll confirms that Stevens has closed the gap and that the race is now a dead heat; an acquittal would be likely to boost Stevens on top, while a guilty verdict would make it difficult for him to pull through. But what happens if the jury only partially acquits Stevens? He is, after all, being tried on seven different charges, so a guilty verdict might not be as damning as the prosecution would want it to be.

2 Comments | AK-Sen, AL-02, AL-05, AZ-01, AZ-03, CO-04, FL-21, FL-24, ID-01, IL-10, IN-03, KY-02, LA-06, MD-01, MI-07, MN-03, MO-06, MO-09, NC-08, NE-02, NH-01, NJ-03, NJ-07, NM-01, NV-03, NY-26, NY-29, OH-01, OH-02, OH-15, OH-16, PA-03, PA-11, VA-02, WA-08, WI-08 | Permalink
Posted by Taniel

RNCC works on firewall, DCCC invests in new districts and passes $1 million mark in many

October 14, 2008

As the time comes for the party committees to buy time for the upcoming week, the DCCC’s ability to flex its financial muscle and will seats to become competitive once again makes itself felt. The DCCC spent more than $8 million on more than 40 districts, moved in four new races it had not yet spent any money on while seemingly withdrawing from two, and passed the $1 million mark in a number of these contests. The GOP, by contrast, appear to have largely given up on playing offense and are building a firewall around a few incumbents; the NRCC’s meager resources hardly allow it to dream of a better defense.

As always, the DCCC and NRCC decision to invest will not make a candidate, though a decision to pull out can certainly break an underfunded challenger or a swamped incumbent. But beyond illustrating the two parties’ financial disparities, a detailed look at where the two parties are spending money lays out the electoral map and tells us which seats people who are paid to track House races full-time (and who have inside information and polling we do not have access to) think will be competitive, or not.

With that said, let’s use our now familiar classification to break down the latest House expenditures:

  • Republican investments

The GOP is in such a difficult financial situation that its mere decision to spend money on a race says a lot about how they view (and how their private polling tells them to view) a race. If the GOP is spending money on a race that is supposed to be competitive, it means they think that this particular seat is more likely to be saved than others; if they spend money on a race that was not yet viewed as that competitive, it means we probably don’t have enough information and that district is indeed highly vulnerable.

In the latter category is FL-21, where the NRCC just spent more than $500,000. This district is in Miami’s media market, so advertising there is difficult. The DCCC has not spent any money on the district for now, however, so the GOP might be successful in building a firewall here. (More on the GOP’s FL-21 efforts below.) Also in the latter category is MO-06, where incumbent Sam Graves is not currently considered to be in as much trouble as other Republicans - but the NRCC is evidently worried about his prospects and intent on keeping him, as they spent more than $100,000 in one their only six-figure investments to date.

In the former category is NM-01, the open seat that I am currently rating lean take-over. The NRCC is not spending money here, but Freedom’s Watch and the Republican Campaign Committee of New Mexico are each spending more than $200,000. (Democrats are spending heavily in both NM-01 and MO-06.) The NRCC also threw in modest amounts in LA-06, PA-03 and WI-08. (Update: It looks like the RNCC is looking to spend a lot of money in NH-01 - as much as $400,000, confirming its strategy of putting a lot of money in a handful of races.)

  • New DCCC investments

Democrats are now spending for the first time in four districts, two of which are obvious choices (CO-04 and NY-29) and two of which are true shockers (IN-03 and NE-02). While it might be surprising that the DCCC has not opened its wallet to hit Musgrave yet, the congresswoman has been hit by more than half-a-million worth of advertisement by the Defenders of Wildlife PAC, and that might have convinced the DCCC that its involvement was not (yet) needed. But now that the DCCC is moving in, it is clearly determined to make a splash: its first buy is an impressive $345,000.

As for IN-03 and NE-02, they demonstrate the Democrats’ determination to expand the map: neither of these seats was supposed to be even close to competitive, and I confess IN-03 isn’t even on my House ratings for now. That will be corrected soon, as the DCCC’s decision to invest a serious amount of money (it has already bought more than $150,000 and has committed about half-a-million) means that the district is indeed competitive. Democrats aren’t bluffing in NE-02 either, as they have brought more than $130,000 worth of ads.

  • Districts where the DCCC has now spent more than $1 million

This is not a guarantee that the Democratic candidate will, but it certainly means that the DCCC has put a high priority in winning these races: AK-AL, AZ-01, AZ-03 (!), AZ-05, MN-03, NC-08, NH-01, NJ-07, OH-15, OH-16. In other districts, the total passes $1 million when the DCCC’s investment is added to that of NARPAC (National Association of Realtors). In PA-11, for instance, that total reaches $1.8 million; if Rep. Kanjorski loses reelection, it will just how incredibly vulnerable he had become.

  • Districts the DCCC is playing defense

The DCCC continued to invest in AL-05 (now almost half-a-million total), CA-11, AZ-05 (nearly $250,000 this week, bringing the total to $1.2 million), LA-06, MS-01, NH-01 (the total now reaches $1.2 million), PA-10, TX-23 and WI-08. More surprising is the DCCC’s decision to dump huge resources in IN-09 (almost $300,000 this week), a district that looks increasingly safe for Baron Hill. However, the DCCC looks to have stopped advertising in FL-16 (Mahoney’s district…) and AZ-08, where Rep. Giffords looks relatively secure. Both districts could be moved accordingly in my upcoming rating changes.

  • Districts that were not so long ago considered long shots

I already mentioned IN-03 and NE-02, but those are just the tip of the iceberg as the DCCC continues to pour in money in races that were not considered that competitive as of this summer! New spending in AL-02 raises the total to more than half-a-million, an impressive sum for this relatively cheap media market. The DCCC’s spending totals in AZ-03 are truly staggering, as this is a district no one thought of as that competitive until ten days ago - and the DCCC just dumped in about $369,000. In MD-01, a large new buy brings the Democratic total to almost $900,000. (The Club for Growth is helping the Republican here with more than $200,000). Other noteworthy buys in this category are KY-02, MO-09, NM-02, PA-03, VA-02. In all these districts, the DCCC is not bluffing and is putting serious money behind its hopes of riding a blue tsunami.

  • Districts Democrats were expecting to pick-up more easily

Most of the DCCC’s biggest overall expenditures belong in this category, in what is at the same time good news for Democrats (it allows them to solidify their prospects) but also disappointing ones (since they would have liked to spend some of money elsewhere). Perhaps the most surprising development is the DCCC’s decision to invest nearly $350,000 in AZ-01 (bringing the total to $1.3 million), a race Democrats are expected to win relatively easily. The DCCC also just spent more than $200,000 in NM-01, OH-15 and OH-16 (bringing the total in each to more than $1 million), three open seats that Democrats are one point were hoping to have an easier time with. Other districts in this category are IL-11, NJ-03, NJ-07 and VA-11.

  • Districts that are and were expected to be competitive

This category contains the least surprising ad buys since the races were expected to be competitive since the beginning. Particularly noteworthy buys include the DCCC’s buy of about $300,000 in NC-08 (total of more than $1.3 million), more than $200,000 in MI-07, NV-03, NY-26, OH-01 and WA-08. Combined with AFSCME’s spending, the Democratic buys in MI-07 have an impressive size. The DCCC also spent in CT-04, FL-26, IL-10, MI-09, MN-03 and MO-06.

—

While it would be too long to take a detailed look at the committees’ new ads, it is worth taking a quick look at the themes these new spots are emphasizing. On the Democratic side, the day’s biggest news undoubtedly comes from the DCCC’s decision to heavily invest in IN-03 and attack longtime Representative Souder for having been changed by Washington:

On the Republican size, the biggest news by far is the RNCC’s massive investment in FL-21. The GOP might have chosen this district because of the scandals that have long surrounded Democratic candidate Raul Martinez, a controversial figure who has enough baggage for the GOP to seize easily. The ad’s closer says it all - “We know Martinez is corrupt enough for Washington, but that doesn’t mean we should send him there:”

1 Comment | AL-02, AL-05, AZ-01, AZ-03, AZ-05, AZ-08, CA-11, CO-04, CT-04, FL-16, FL-21, FL-26, IL-10, IL-11, IN-03, KY-02, LA-06, MD-01, MI-07, MI-09, MN-03, MO-06, MO-09, MS-01, NC-08, NE-02, NH-01, NJ-03, NJ-07, NM-01, NM-02, NV-03, NY-26, NY-29, OH-01, OH-15, OH-16, PA-03, PA-10, TX-23, VA-02, VA-11, WA-08, WI-08 | Permalink
Posted by Taniel

Down-ballot: Bailout backlash, heated ad wars, GOP lead in NY-26 and tie in WY-AL

September 26, 2008

Last night, I explained that the bailout package has the potential of rocking congressional races over the next few weeks, as challengers from both parties are likely to campaign against any deal that is struck. While most of the opposition is coming from House Republicans right now, it is a Democrat - Jeff Merkley - who aired the first ad bringing up the bailout.

But it is another Democrat, Rep. Kanjorski (PA-11) who could be the most endangered if there is any voter backlash against the bailout. Kanjorski is a chairman of the subcommittee on capital markets, and is heavily involved in the Capitol Hill negotiations. A Politico piece about the race specifies that Republican Lou Barletta is “cautiously supporting” a bailout, but he will not have to cast a vote on it and he is looking to attack Kanjorski on related topics - for instance campaign contributions he received from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In Florida, it is a Democratic challenger who is using the exact same argument - questioning how much oversight Rep. Feeney (FL-24) could have exercised when he was taking contributions from the mortgage industry.

Meanwhile, the ad wars are heating up in the final stretch before the election - so much so that some are now starting to hurt those that are airing them. In KY-02, the DCCC’s decision to invest in the race in this conservative district was viewed as a major development a few days ago. But a local TV station has decided to pull the ad off the air after advice from its counsel. The ads charged that the company GOP candidate Guthrie works for shipped jobs to Mexico, something the Guthrie campaign denied, threatening legal action. Anytime a TV station is moved to pull an ad, it is obviously a major victory for the candidate who was under attack as it allows him to complain about their opponent’s negativity and put him on the defensive.

Meanwhile, Wayne Parker, the Republican candidate in AL-05 is airing an ad against Democrat Parker Griffith, a former radiation oncologist. The ad uses an internal peer review that Parker obtained that charges that Griffith under-radiated patients at his cancer treatment center in order to generate more future revenues. The ad suggests that such allegations led Griffith to leave the hospital:

Meanwhile, let’s take a look at some polls from down-the-ballot races - starting with statewide votes:

  • SUSA finds that California’s Proposition 8 could still pass, as the yes vote is trailing only 49% to 44%.
  • Merkley leads 45% to 40% in a Research 2000 poll of Oregon’s Senate race. This is the second poll in a row to find the Democrat taking a lead, the first to have him ahead outside of the MoE.
  • Shaheen only leads 41% to 40% in a Suffolk poll of New Hampshire’s Senate race.

The conventional wisdom appears to be that Prop 8 banning gay marriage is heading to defeat, but polling data has suggested that the contest could go either way, with the no (the pro-gay marriage position) only holding a narrow advantage. One reassuring thought for “no” proponents is that the “no” tends to gain as Election Day approaches as undecideds usually break towards that vote - but that might be more applicable in the case of confusing proposals.

The four Senate polls find results that are very interesting - though not surprising. In the MS Senate race, Wicker does appear to hold a narrow advantage - something we could not have said a few months ago. In Oregon, however, I believe this is the largest lead Merkley has ever held, and it comes in the heels of a SUSA survey in which Merkley picked up 14% and took a narrow 2% lead. The economic crisis appears to be boosting Democrats in Oregon, and Gordon Smith’s hard hitting crime ads don’t appear to have done him much good.

The most puzzling poll numbers these days are coming from New Hampshire. Sununu seized a 7% lead ever in a Rasmussen poll earlier this week, but that does seem to be an outlier as no other survey is finding Sununu with any sort of lead - let alone one outside of the margin of error. That said, Shaheen does look to be losing ground. Not only is her lead down to single-digits now, but a number of surveys have her leading only within the MoE. The recent ad campaign by the NRSC and by Sununu could be having an effect, as is McCain’s apparently improving the GOP brand in the Granite State.

  • In NY-26, Alice Kryzan trails Republican Chris Lee 48% to 37% in a new SUSA poll. As if that wasn’t bad enough, Kryzan’s primary opponent Jon Powers takes 5% on the Working Families party line, while the candidate on the Independent Party line gets 3% despite the fact that he will not be on the ballot and Lee’s name will be on the IP ballot line. Certainly a tough poll for Democrats in a district they have been looking at for months.
  • In WY-AL, Research 2000 finds a tie at 42% between Democrat Trauner and Republican Lummis. Trauner led by 3% in a poll taken in May. One potential problem for Trauer: Most undecided are Republican voters, which underscores how difficult it will be for him to raise from the low 40s to the high 40s.
  • In NH-01, Rep. Shea-Porter is up 44% to 43% to former Rep. Bradley in the Research 2000 poll. (In NH-02, Rep. Hodes leads 47% to 34%.) The margin of error is a very large 6%, however.
  • In NV-03, Dina Titus released an internal poll showing her leading 46% to 37% against GOP Rep. Porter. A July survey had her up by 4%.
  • In NM-01, an internal poll for the Heinrich campaign finds the Democrat leading Darren White 48% to 42%, up from a 3% lead in June.
  • In KY-02, Brett Guthrie leads 49% to 43% in a new SUSA poll. Democrat David Boswell led by 3% in a June poll, so this is a bounce for the Republican in what is a conservative district.

All six of these districts are highly competitive, and the DCCC has started pouring money in all of them but WY-AL. These polls suggest that all four justify those investments - except perhaps in NY-26, a district many expected to be a strong pick-up opportunity but where Chris Lee starts with a clear lead. Note that a DCCC poll had Kryzan leading by 10%, but it also had a lot of undecided. Meanwhile, Shea-Porter and Bradley are engaged in a heated battle that will likely go down the wire - and the presidential race could have a big impact on who wins this House race.

In NM-01, Heinrich is slightly favored but Democrats were looking to be more secure in this open seat by this point. When looking at these NM-01 and NV-03 surveys, keep in mind that internal polls might need to be taken with a grain of salt, but that trendlines are nevertheless useful - and here they both favor the Democrats. As for KY-02, this is the district in which the DCCC ad was pulled; Republican Guthrie had been trailing in the previous polls, as well as in Boswell internals, so the GOP should be relieved that he appears to be gaining in this conservative district. Guthrie should be further helped by McCain’s coattails. Furthermore, Guthrie has been airing ads for far longer, helping him improve his position.

No Comments » | AL-05, FL-24, KY-02, MS-Sen, NH-01, NH-02, NH-Sen, NM-01, NV-03, NY-26, OR-Sen, PA-11, Proposition 8, WY-AL | Permalink
Posted by Taniel

Congress: New round of DCCC expenditures, Lunsford invokes McCain

September 17, 2008

Two days ago, I detailed some of the DCCC’s recent expenditures to point out that Democrats were already investing heavily in House races while the NRCC was remaining silent. Such discrepancies are especially important in the House battle: While Barack Obama and John McCain saturate the airwaves with millions worth of ads ads and voters also hear about them in nightly news and in newspapers, House races don’t get anywhere near the same level of exposure - making any investment that much more valuable.

Last night, the gap continued to widen as the DCCC dumped $1.75 millions worth of advertisement in 15 districts (via Swing State Project), 12 of which are currently held by Republicans. Some of these buys are quite significant. A rundown:

  • Defense: $82,615 in AL-05, $101,893 in AZ-05 (total: $295,997), $493,422 in NH-01
  • Toss-ups: $70,800 in CT-04, $41,066 in IL-10, $114,848 in NC-08, $118,428 in OH-01
  • Districts Dems at some point hoped to win easily: $82,615 in AZ-01, $40,953 in IL-11 (total: $525,936), $116,541 in NJ-07, $144,011 in NM-01 (total: $291,726), $111,899 in OH-15 (total: $385,491), $152,748 in OH-16 (total: $424,936)
  • Less obvious: $32,645 in AL-02, $88,552 in PA-03

The NRCC has yet to spend anything in most of these districts, and if it has it’s been to conduct a poll (like in PA-03) rather than air ads. On the other hand, this is not the DCCC’s first investment in many of these districts, but it is in others. This represents, for instance, the DCCC’s first media buy in OH-01, CT-4, and IL-10, but also in Democratic-held NH-01.

The GOP primary was held recently and former Rep. Bradley won his party’s nomination; he doesn’t have that much money left yet and the feelings of much the Republican base are still bruised. The DCCC is trying to exploit this opening with a truly big ad buy. Among other interesting buys is the DCCC’s decision to pursue PA-03, a district that would not have been on most people’s minds a few weeks ago. Also, keep in mind that the cost of running ads varies widely depending on the media market, so $80,000 in Alabama actually buys you a lot of air time.

Most of these ads buys will be negative spots attacking Republican candidates - and most of them will probably contain grainy images of President Bush. As we have discussed before, the impact of this on the presidential race will be very interesting (though hard to track). Will it amplify Obama’s message against McCain and make sure that voters are thinking about Bush when casting their ballots? Or will it just make that argument banal when Obama uses it? Here is, for instance, the DCCC’s new spot against Bradley in NH-01. Since there is the most money behind this ad, it seems logical to choose this one to link to in this post:

Meanwhile, a new ad by Bruce Lunsford in the Kentucky Senate race is using an interesting strategy: Using footage of McCain’s convention speech to hit Mitch McConnell’s for fitting the description of the “me-first country-second” insider politicians McCain is crusading against. The ad points out that McConnell voted for the “infamous” Bridge to Nowhere twice:

This is an obvious echo to Gordon Smith’s ads in Oregon’s Senate race in which he tied himself to Barack Obama, the difference being that Smith was touting his own ties to someone from the opposite party while this one uses McCain (who has had famous clashes in McConnell) to hit a member of the same party. It’s also a more obvious move for Lunsford than it was for Smith, given that Oregon is much more competitive at the presidential level than Kentucky is. Now, it will be interesting to see (1) whether McCain issues a release defending McConnell (as Obama did in Oregon) and (2) whether other Democrats running in red states use a similar strategy.

Finally, the DSCC’s new ad in Alaska’s Senate race is worth noting, as it hits Stevens on ethics without focusing on his indictment, thus echoing an ad put out by an independent group last week (with a significant $500,000 buy). Stevens still looks very competitive despite the fact that he was indicted in mid-July and he is running ads touting his clout in Washington to make the point that, whatever his ethical missteps, he brings money to Alaska and helps the state’s residents. Democrats know that Stevens’ indictement will be in the news in the next few weeks: his trial is set to start in a few days. What they need to fight against is Stevens’ argument that he still does good for Alaska, and that’s what this ad is arguing. “It’s not about Alaska anymore,” says the announcer:

7 Comments | AK-Sen, AL-02, AL-05, AZ-01, AZ-05, CT-04, IL-10, IL-11, KY-Sen, NC-08, NH-01, NJ-07, NM-01, OH-01, OH-15, OH-16, PA-03 | Permalink
Posted by Taniel

House: More confusion in NY-13 and the DCCC’s aggressive expenditures

September 15, 2008

Given how NY-13 seemed to be at the center of the political universe for much of the early summer, it’s hard to believe that I have not had to write about this race since July 11th. But rumors that Rep. Vito Fossella is plotting a political comeback is sure to launch another round of confusion in Staten Island’s House seat.

Here’s where things stand: After weeks of a chaotic saga in which all of the GOP’s possible contenders (down to the fourth-tier) declined to run, the Republican nomination went to former Assemblyman Robert Staniere, a figure so loathed by many in the local GOP establishment that only one Republican official is backing his party’s nominee. Democratic candidate McMahon’s task is made easier by the fat that the Conservative Party (a force in New York politics) has fielded its own candidate, attorney Paul Atanasio.

In brief, NY-13 is the most vulnerable of the GOP’s House seats, and is rated likely takeover in my latest ratings. After these cataclysmic few months, it can’t possibly get worse for Staten Island’s GOP, and some might be wondering whether the party might have been in better shape sticking with its adulterous DUI-ing incumbent. That has apparently given Fossella some ideas, and a poll is now reportedly running in Staten Island testing Fossella’s name.

Since the primary has passed, Fossella would have to convince one of the candidates currently on the ballot to step down - and they can only do that by dying, moving out of the state or being nominated to run for judgeship. If the local GOP is determined enough to get Fossella in, it could perhaps pull some strings and get Atanasio a shot at a judgeship (would they do the same for Staniere), though that remains rather unlikely - not to mention that it would be difficult for Fossella to run and win on a third-party line.

While this might end up having only a minimal impact on the battle for the House - it’s difficult to see how even a Fossella comeback could save NY-13 for the GOP - it certainly increases the race’s entertainment value.

Meanwhile, the DCCC is stepping up its independent expenditures at an aggressive rhythm, and in a stark contrast to the NRCC which remains in a very difficult position financially. Swing State Project tracks the committee’s expenditures, and its latest weekly summary shows how the spending so far (and it’s already mid-September) has been disproportionately Democratic. On the one hand, the NRCC has only invested a few thousand dollars in five districts - three of which (ID-01, PA-03 and AL-02) are seats that the GOP should never have to defend in the first place. All of the NRCC’s latest expenditures are polling related.

The DCCC, meanwhile, is up on air in a large number of districts - and a lot of these expenditures are fairly significant. That is particularly the case in some of the Democratic-held vulnerable seats where the GOP cannot really afford to play for now (most of the available money is likely to go on defense) but where the DCCC is rushing to the rescue of its endangered incumbent. $575,032 have already been spent in PA-11, and nearly $400,000 in TX-22. Other vulnerable Democratic seats the DCCC is paying attention to include AL-05 and CA-11 (where the National Association of Realtors PAC has just spent half-a-million dollar on a media buy on behalf of Rep. McNerney).

As for offense, for now the DCCC is spending a lot of money in the districts in which it is best positioned, GOP-held districts in which most analysts are already giving the Democrats’ a slight advantage. The DCCC has already spent $169,758 in AZ-01, more than $100,000 in AK-AL and VA-11. In NJ-07, an expensive district which is looking more competitive than Democrats were hoping it would be, the DCCC has already spent more than $273,000, a lot of it on advertisement! The same is true in OH-15 and OH-16, two open seats that were once considered to be leaning Democratic but where the GOP remains competitive; the DCCC has now spent more than $250,000 in both districts. In NM-01, the DCCC is reaching the $150,000 mark. One very interesting district is NC-08, a district the DCCC neglected in 2006 (the Democrat lost by a bit more than 300 votes) but where they just dumped more than $119,000 and are airing this ad. The DCCC is also firing its first salvoes in MN-03, in the form of a direct mailer.

But it is in IL-11 that the DCCC appears to be going all-out, as it has now almost spent $500,000 to help paint the district blue. Like some of the districts listed above, this is somewhat of a disappointment, as IL-11 was once rated likely takeover in my ratings before slipping back to a more competitive lean takeover as the GOP found a decent candidate, self-funder Marty Ozinga. He has proved surprisingly competitive in the months since, and the DCCC looks determined to lock this seat. Their latest ad is worth a look since it combines a charge Democrats are making against Republicans across the country (proximity to Bush) with an accusation that is being used by Republicans against Al Franken up in Minnesota (failure to pay taxes). And keep in mind, the DCCC is spending a lot of money attacking Ozinga:

The NRCC has yet to spend anything on any of these districts - whether NM-01, AZ-01, IL-11, PA-11 or the other districts I mentioned. That is fine in some places (Ozinga can use his own money in IL-11), but not in others (it will be difficult for NJ-07’s Leonard Lance to respond by himself in the expensive New York City market). At the House level, where voters pay less attention and the press has less coverage, such financial discrepancies can make a big difference.

No Comments » | AK-AL, AL-02, AL-05, AZ-01, CA-11, House, ID-01, IL-11, NJ-07, NM-01, NY-13, OH-15, OH-16, PA-03, PA-11, TX-22, VA-11 | Permalink
Posted by Taniel

Morning polling: Hagan takes lead in NC (!), Obama weak with Clinton voters, McCain gains in FL

August 26, 2008

Update: Well, well, well. Gallup’s tracking poll, the first entirely post-Biden, was just released and it shows McCain taking his very first lead since June 4th, 46% to 44%. Unlike Rasmussen’s, Gallup does not point to any internals that could explain this shift and warns it is statistically insignificant (as it indeed is), but it does confirm the theory that Clinton supporters’ initial gut reaction to the VP announcement is anger - making tonight’s speech that much more important.

Original post: Rasmussen’s tracking that was released this morning finds a tie at 44%, with Obama losing the 4% lead he had yesterday. This is the first tracking poll conducted entirely after Biden’s pick was announced, but Rasmussen finds Obama getting weaker every night of polling. The internal Rasmussen points to: 47% of Democratic women think that Obama should have picked Clinton, and 21% are now voting for McCain.

This latest decline in Obama’s numbers among Clinton supporters is not what is worrisome. As I suggested a few weeks ago, Obama’s VP pick was the moment some Clinton supporters realized that she would not be the vice-presidential nominee and they might temporarily withdraw their support, preventing Obama from building a VP bounce. If they were on board as of Saturday, they will be on board again in a few days.

But that should mask the fact that Obama has a lot of work to do. The election has tightened, and there is little mystery as to why: Obama has not solidified the Democratic base and Clinton supporters are still sulking. The good news for Obama is that it is easier to fire up Dems than convince independents; the bad news is that they haven’t gotten very far since June 3rd despite knowing this was a crucial challenge.

Quinnipiac’s latest release from the three “big states” (FL, OH and PA) confirms this by highlighting Obama’s weakness among registered Democrats that makes him lose ground in both OH and FL for the second month in a row:

  • In Ohio (polling history), Obama gets 44% to McCain’s 43% (he led by 2% in July). The key factor: McCain’s margin among Republicans is 16% larger than Obama’s margin among Democrats. Obama only gets 69% of Clinton supporters.
  • In Pennsylvania (polling history), there is no change in the margin as Obama keeps his 7% lead - 49% to 42%. Obama is weak among registered Democrats here as well, but he gets more cross-over votes from Republicans and leads by 10% among independents. He only gets 60% of Clinton supporters.
  • In Florida (polling history), McCain has gone from a 2% deficit to a 4% lead, 47% to 43%, mainly because of his gains among registered Democrats (Obama has fallen from 86% to 78%). 76% of Clinton supporters vote for Obama.
  • In another poll from Florida released by Kitchens group in conjunction with the Florida Chamber of Commerce, McCain leads 42% to 39%.
  • We also got a poll from North Carolina from PPP, with the margin remaining stable since July. McCain leads 45% to 42%, with the black vote making up 21% of the sample. Obama gets 84% of the black vote, McCain leads the white vote 57% to 30%. Obama would have to slightly improve his share of both.
  • In Texas, a new Rasmussen poll finds the same margin for the third straight month: McCain leads 50% to 41% (54% to 44% when leaners are included).

Compared to June’s numbers, Obama slips by 8% in Florida, 5% in Ohio and 5% in Pennsylvania. He is somehow able to survive in PA despite only having 60% of the Clinton vote, but being at that much of a disadvantage among base voters alone will not get the job done in a tight state like OH. And while it is true that Florida remains close, keep in mind that the Republican has not been advertising in the state over the past few months. Obama has. The same is true of NC, but given that state’s Republican bent, Obama would be in a strong position heading into the fall if he maintains only a 3% deficit.

Meanwhile, in down-the-ballot polls, Democrats got treated to a great surprise in the form of PPP’s poll from North Carolina (thus giving this website’s posse of North Carolina Democrats a reason to celebrate!):

  • In the North Carolina’s Senate race (polling history), Kay Hagan has now taken the lead for the first time since an early May Rasmussen poll. She is ahead 42% to 39% in PPP’s latest poll, with 5% for Libertarian Chris Cole. Dole led 49% to 40% and 4% last month, suggesting that her votes have now gone in the undecided column.
  • In AL-05, a Capital Research Survey Center shows Democrat Parker Griffith narrowly ahead of Republican Wayne Parker in what is the most (only?) endangered Dem-held open seat.
  • In MI-07, an EPIC-MRA poll finds Rep. Walberg in a tight race against Democrat Mark Schauer, 43% to 40%.
  • In MI-09, the same EPIC-MRA poll has Rep. Knollenberg with a 43% to 36% lead against Gary Peters. Libertarian Adam Goodman gets 5% and Jack Kevorkian gets 4%.

The NC numbers are great great news for Democrats, and the poll contains an internal to suggest that they are not just an outlier: More than 60% of voters say they have seen the DSCC’s ads against Dole, and Hagan leads by 6% among that group alone, suggesting that Democratic attacks against the incumbent Republican are proving remarkably effective. It is rare to have such clear polling indication as to the success of an ad campaign. (Note that this race has been surprisingly variable based on ads, as Dole jumped up to a lead in late May after an ad blitz.) Now Hagan still has to capture the voters that have left Dole, as it is the Republican that fell (-10) rather than the Democrat who rose.

As for the House races, they are all among the hottest of this year’s House battle. In another year, Republicans would be likely to have the upper-hand in the conservative AL-05 but the environment combined with financial disparities allow Democrats to stay (more than) competitive. As one of only two competitive Dem-held open seats (and it is debatable how vulnerable OR-05), AL-05 will remain a focus for both parties.

10 Comments | AL-05, FL-Pres, MI-07, MI-09, NC-Pres, NC-Sen, Nat-Poll, OH-Pres, PA-Pres, TX-Pres | Permalink
Posted by Taniel

DCCC reserves time in 20 new districts, drawing an increasingly clear House map

July 22, 2008

Two weeks ago, I marveled at the DCCC’s announcement that it was reserving more than $30 million of air time in more than 30 House races. Yesterday, I described the DSCC’s investments in the Maine Senate race and noted the Democrats’ huge fundraising advantage. Within hours came the news that the DCCC had reserved an additional $18 million in 20 new districts, for a total of $53 million of air time reserved in 51 districts, 34 of which are currently held by the GOP.

Remember, this is not actually a buy on the DCCC’s buy - only a reservation - and the committee can very well renounce airing any ads, but the depth of this list is a testament to the depth of the House playing field. And consider that the $53 million the DCCC has reserved is within the committee’s $58 million of cash on hand at the end of June. In other words, if they give up spending plans in some of these districts (as they probably will in NY-13, for instance, since Democrats seem much safer in that GOP-held district than many of the party’s incumbents), it will not be because of financial constraints but because the race no longer seems competitive.

What is interesting about this round of buys (the full list is available here) is that it contains both districts that remain long shots for Democrats and where the DCCC is interested in expanding the map, and districts that are relatively safe for the Democratic candidate:

  • In the first category are $1.4 million in FL-18, FL-21 and FL-25, all part of the same Miami market. The three districts are held by well-established Republican incumbents, but Democrats are mounting a strong offensive, particularly in the 21st and 25th districts.
  • Also in the first category are a combined $1 million in AL-02 and ID-01, two extremely conservative districts that Democrats are hoping to wrestle away. The former is an open seat, the latter is competitive because of the incumbent’s controversial nature. Both