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

Finances: NRCC drops out of MI-09, Obama’s fundraising not as stellar

October 23, 2008

The NRCC has pulled the plug on its third incumbent in as many days. Rep. Knollenberg of MI-09, who until a few weeks ago seemed to be slightly favored in his re-election bid, will receive no help from his national party.

The NRCC had reserved more than $600,000 to be spend over the last two weeks of the campaign. It had already canceled the portion of that money that was intended to be used this week; now, it has also canceled next’s week media buy. This comes a few weeks after Knollenberg received a first blow when McCain abruptly pulled out of Michigan, undercutting Knollenberg’s hopes of relying on McCain’s ground game to turn out his own base. By contrast, the DCCC has already spent $1,6 million on behalf of Democratic candidate Gary Peters and the Obama campaign is still organizing in the Wolverine State.

Knollenberg is a well-established incumbent who would be very difficult to beat in a neutral environment, but the Democratic wave is now threatening to submerge him. Without the NRCC’s financial backing and the McCain campaign’s ground game, Knollenberg looks to be in a very precarious position and among the clearest victims yet of the GOP’s fundraising woes.

As if the NRCC did not have enough problems dealing with the difficult stategic positions it is facing, it is now facing harsh criticism from the Family Research Council, led by Tony Perkins. (Perkins played an important role last fall, you will recall, when the Religious Right was moving to sabotage Rudy Giuliani’s candidacy. Perkins was one of the most virulent anti-Rudy militants before issuing more positive statements about the former NYC Mayor.)

Today, Perkins voiced a protest against the NRCC’s decision to pull the plug on Reps. Bachmann and Musgrave’s campaigns. (Both incumbents are strong social conservatives.) “The left is attacking both of these outstanding women because they are true conservatives,” Perkins wrote. “This is no time to cut and run from a fight.” He called upon FRC members to no longer donate to the NRCC until it changed its decision on CO-04 and MN-06.

Now, this is unlikely to be a particularly effective method of blackmail. There are 11 days until Election Day, how much money is the NRCC expecting to raise from FRC members by Election Day? But it does illustrate the pressure the DCCC and NRCC find themselves under when the time comes for tough decisions as to which incumbents or challengers to fund and which ones to cut loose. This cycle, most of that pressure is falling on the Republican committees since their budgets force them to make more choices - and then deal with the consequences. After the NRSC decided to no longer spend money on Louisiana’s Senate race earlier this week, Sen. Vitter and Karl Rove quickly intervened to protest the decision - and the NRSC is now back on air.

Of course, the NRCC’s decision to cut funds in these districts is not driven by any disdain towards social conservatives but by hard math: The NRCC has very limited funds, and it has vulnerable districts poping up left and right. CO-04 has been rated lean take-over for weeks in my ratings; why would the NRCC invest there on an incumbent that has consistently underperformed in her district? The choice to not fund Bachmann’s race is more curious.

Bachmann hurt herself with her MSNBC rant, and that was enough to make the race highly competitive - not enough to make her the underdog. Perhaps the NRCC thought that either Bachmann’s comments truly damaged her (in which case she will fall anyway) or that they will be forgotten by November 4th (in which case she is likely to survive). Bachmann’s refusal to move on and her defiant posture over the past few days might have also made the NRCC think that the incumbent would not cooperate - and that there was thus little point in helping her.

—

Meanwhile, news from the front of presidential fundraising brings the somewhat surprising news that, as of October 15th, Obama and the DNC had less cash on hand than McCain and the RNC. (The committees and the campaigns had to file financial disclosure forms for the first half of October by midnight today.)

The Obama campaign spent a jaw-dropping $106 million over the first two weeks of October, and raised $37,7 million over the same period - meaning that it had $66 million left in the bank as of October 15th. (Full Obama statement here, for your browsing pleasure.) The DNC had $11 million left, bringing the Democrats’ total cash on hand to $77 million. Meanwhile, the McCain campaign had $25 million let, combined with $59 million for the RNC - bringing the total to $84 million.

This does not mean, however, that Democrats no longer enjoy a financially dominant position. First, it is possible that Obama had already bought ad time for the weeks after October 15th by that date, though the statement seems to be suggesting that this might not be a big factor: (1) The statement says that Obama has spent $80 million on media buys from October 1st to October 15th, however, which is not that far off from what Obama is known to be spending for two weeks of ads (we know he spent $32 million worth of ads airing in the first week of September). (2) Furthermore, Obama’s statement indicates that most of this money was spent by October 10th, suggesting that the buys were meant to cover the upcoming week - not the period until Election Day.

Second, a dollar held by the Obama campaign does not equate a dollar held by the RNC; as we have seen over and over again over the past few months, McCain has not been able to control his message effectively because of his need to pay for most of his ads with the RNC’s money or because the RNC’s independent expenditure division comes up with its own themes. Furthermore, while most of the RNC’s war chest will go to the presidential race, not all of it will.

Third, the Obama campaign is continuing to raise money as we speak while the McCain campaign is not - and any new money that will be injected into the GOP will go to the RNC, reducing any possibility of message unification even more.

Finally, and this is very important, the two parties were at near parity because of Obama’s astonishing spending spree, not because of a disappointing fundraising total by Obama ($37,7 in two weeks is a higher fundraising pace than Obama enjoyed in any month other than September.) His early October spending has a great deal to do with Obama surge to a dominant position. By swamping McCain in a large number of battleground states, Obama drastically transformed the electoral map over those two weeks: He put the blue states entirely out of play, confirmed Missouri and Indiana’s toss up status and edged slightly ahead in a number of red states.

Even if the GOP can avoid being financially demolished as badly as it has been over the next 11 days (and given that they have been crushed in the week since October 15th, that looks unlikely), the harm has already been done: Republicans now stuck playing on red turf - so red, in fact, that they can’t even keep up spending in purple Colorado.

8 Comments | CO-04, MI-09, MN-06, financing | Permalink
Posted by Taniel

Spending, spending, spending (and some cutbacks)

October 22, 2008

It might be very little compared to a $700 billion bailout, but it’s a lot of money but most other standards: Every presidential, congressional and gubernatorial campaign saved its ammunition for these final two weeks, and money is now flying left and right.

In this game of piling expenditures, woe to whoever is left behind! Or should some cutbacks perhaps be taken as good news by candidates? The Denver Post reveals tonight that the DSCC will pull-out of the Colorado Senate race because it feels that Mark Udall is now in a “commanding position” - a remarkable decision by a party committee that has a lot of cash, and a clear sign that Chuck Schumer wants to spend as much of it as possible in Georgia and Kentucky.

(While true that Schaffer has not in a single poll all year and that Udall has been ahead by double-digits in some of the latest surveys, Udall hasn’t exactly been able to put the race away either and a number of independent groups are in the state pummeling Udall, so the DSCC better be sure of what it’s doing. On the other hand, the NRSC appears to have pulled out of Colorado as well, and Udall had far more cash on hand than Schaffer at the end of the third quarter, guaranteeing that Udall has a substantial advantage in the final stretch.)

Two Republican congressmen for whom a cutback could be disastrous news, however, are Reps. Musgrave and Bachmann of CO-04 and MN-06. In the former, the NRCC bought $375,000 of air time for this week yesterday, but it will not be spending anything in the final week of the campaign. (Could they not have decided that yesterday and saved themselves the $376,000?) In MN-06, the NRCC had not yet invested any money but had reserved ad time for the final two weeks; no longer.

(It is more difficult to know what to make of this Minnesota cutback: It is certainly not a sign of confidence on the part of the NRCC given that the race just became highly competitive 5 days ago, so could it be a concession? While Bachmann is viewed as more vulnerable today than she was before her rant on anti-Americanism, she doesn’t seem to be vulnerable enough at all for Republicans to despair of holding her seat. Perhaps the GOP saw how much money Democrats were preparing to pour in the district and realized there was no way it could even attempt to match that?)

While the NRCC is busy deciding which of its incumbents to abandon, the DCCC is deciding which safe-looking red districts it should spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in. The result of their deliberation resulted in a stunning new spending spree in 51 districts (SSP has the full list) - six of which are first time investments: KS-02, CA-04, MN-06, SC-01, WV-02 and WY-AL!

The most fascinating of these buys is no doubt KS-02, as Rep. Nancy Boyda had insisted that the DCCC pull out of the district because she wanted to run the campaign herself; the DCCC had canceled its reservations. But now that GOP challenger finished the third quarter in a strong position financially, national Democrats apparently decided they couldn’t afford to stay true to their word. But consider a minute the three latter districts I just listed: We knew that CA-04 and WY-AL were highly competitive, but it is still remarkable to see Democrats spend more than $200,000 in such conservative areas - and let’s not even talk of SC-01, which was on no one’s radar screen as of one week ago.

The rest of the DCCC’s investment covers districts they have already been spending in, but some of their expenditures remain nonetheless breathtaking in their attempt to expand the map onto red territory. And consider that this money comes on top of the $4 million the DCCC spent on Monday and Tuesday in other districts. (I reviewed those expenditures here.) That brings the DCCC’s total expenditures over the past three days to about $16 million; the NRCC, meanwhile, spent around $5 million.

In a number of districts, the DCCC is going all-out. They just spent more than $400,000 in 8 districts (to which we should add NC-08 and IL-10, in which they spent more than that amount yesterday). More than $643,000 is being spent on NV-03 for this week alone! The DCCC is spending nearly $600,000 in IL-11, more than $500,000 in NH-01, NJ-03 and OH-01, more than $400,000 in IN-09, MN-06 and VA-11.

The committee has now spent more than $1 million in all of these districts except MN-06, even though it is somewhat puzzling that they are choosing to pour so much money in IN-09 and VA-11, two districts in which the Democratic candidates are now heavily favored (particularly in VA-11). Might that money not have been better spent elsewhere? The same was true of the $300,000 the DCCC spent yesterday in AZ-01, bringing its total there to nearly $2 million.

That said, the rest of this money will go a long way towards boosting Democrats who are facing tough races (Shea-Porter, for instance) or who are on the brink of putting the race away (NV-03 and IL-11). An investment that could prove particularly important is NJ-03: GOP candidate Myers has been unexpectedly competitive in this open seat, but state Senator Adler has a huge financial advantage in what is an expensive district to advertise in. With this much money spent by the DCCC, Adler will swamp Myers, whose main hope now is that New Jersey voters are fed up with Democrats.

The DCCC also spent significant amounts (more than $300,000) against the Diaz-Balart brothers in FL-21 and FL-25, in the pair of contested Michigan districts (MI-07 and MI-09), in MO-09, NM-02, NY-26, NY-29, OH-16 and VA-02. More than $200,000 were poured into CA-04, CA-11, FL-24, MN-03, NM-01, OH-02, OH-15, TX-23, VA-05, WV-02, WY-AL and 8 more districts saw (including IN-03, KY-02 and NE-02) buys of more than $100,000. What is once again remarkable is the depth of the Democrats’ investment: they are leaving almost no stone unturned - extending their buys to places few Democrats were even dreaming of a week ago and pouring huge amounts of money in some of the second-tier races they are hoping to take-over.

It is hard to think of GOP-held districts that could potentially be vulnerable and that the DCCC has not invested in. Perhaps the California districts we have been hearing about over the past week? Meanwhile, the NRCC is struggling to keep up. Apart opening its wallets in 20 districts yesterday, it spent in a few more today, but only crossed the six figure mark in IN-03, KY-02 and NE-02, NV-03 - all GOP-held districts, two of which were not deemed vulnerable as of 14 days ago (IN-03 and NE-02). For the GOP, the bottom is falling out. How much can they now salvage?

4 Comments | CA-04, CA-11, CO-04, CO-Sen, FL-21, FL-24, FL-25, IL-11, IN-03, IN-09, KS-02, KY-02, MI-07, MI-09, MN-03, MN-06, MO-09, NE-02, NH-01, NJ-03, NM-01, NM-02, NV-03, NY-26, NY-29, OH-01, OH-02, OH-15, OH-16, SC-01, TX-23, VA-02, VA-05, VA-11, WV-02, 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

Congress: NRSC’s pulls out and comes back, the DCCC’s (big) loan and nasty ad wars

October 17, 2008

Two days after deciding to pull the plug on the Louisiana Senate race and leave John Kennedy to fend for himself, the NRSC has decided to move back in! Stuart Rothenberg reports that the national committee ended up buying time for TV ads next weeks after internal polling showed Landrieu up in mid single-digits (there has been little public polling of the race, but Landrieu has consistently been in command).

Thus, Republicans have not given up to pick-up the one Dem-held Senate seat they are contesting this year, and the NRSC’s help is very much necessary for Kennedy to stay competitive. Not only does he face an uphill climb, but he has been put on the defensive by Landrieu and the DSCC’s attack ads. He has enough money to continue waging a campaign, but national money would certainly come in handy to respond while also going after Landrieu.

But what does this mean for Saxby Chambliss? Reports two days ago indicated that the NRSC was planning to shift resources out of Louisiana and into Georgia. Will the committee now still send money to help Chambliss? If so, can it possibly have enough of a budget to keep up this many expenditures? There were reports this morning that the NRSC was considering pulling the plug on Bob Schaffer’s campaign in Colorado, but Republican officials now deny that there are any such plans.

It remains to be seen whether the NRSC, underfunded though not as much as the NRCC, can keep playing in this many states without wearing its resources thin and thus not accomplishing much of anything anywhere. In fact, the DSCC has a similar problem since they are now spending money in ten races; they might have more money, but that it is an awful lot of contests to invest in.

Meanwhile, the DCCC secured a $15 million loan today, taking the risk of going into heavy debt to take as advantage of this wave election as much as possible, under the theory that such an opportunity will not present itself for many, many more cycles. With that much more money to spend and still a significant amount of cash on hand, expect the DCCC to drop huge expenditures in the final two to three weeks of the campaign, and invest money in districts we probably can’t predict will be that vulnerable even today.

—

While the national committees are thinking about spending, the ad wars are heating up and an increasing number of candidates are attacking their opponent’s ethics. The harshest hitting ads of the past few days go were unveiled in FL-24 and CO-04 where Tom Feeney and Betsy Markey are being accused of being under investigation. The difference between the two, of course, is that Feeney is facing an FBI investigation for his connection to a lobbyist that has already been convicted while the complaint against Markey was filed by the GOP.

Rep. Musgrave is accusing Markey of having used her influence as a legislative aide to get government contracts for her company. The ad says that Markey faces five years in jail (!):

Meanwhile, the DCCC is airing a tough ad against Rep. Feeney, highlighting his connection to Jack Abramoff. “How effective could my Representative be if he’s being investigated by the FBI,” asks a woman (Feeney started airing an ad in late September apologizing for the Abramoff-paid trip he took a few years ago, so the incumbent recognizes this is a huge weight on his re-election prospects and his ad certainly contributes to getting this issue in the minds of voters):

Finally, a third dramatic ad has been launched by Bruce Lunsford in Kentucky. It is the response to a McConnell spot that accused Lunsford’s clinic of being responsible for a veteran’s death. Lunsford counters: “Does McConnell have no shame? He’ll say anything to hide his record.” Kentucky’s Senate race has been one of the most nasty in the country for months now, but this latest back-and-forth has managed to up the stakes even further.

While negative ads are flying left and right, however, some candidates are choosing to step back from the attacks and air more positive ads, for instance Norm Coleman (watch it here) and Kay Hagan (watch it here), who highlights her newspaper endorsements. Both candidates, of course, can rely on the NRSC and the DSCC respectively to attack their opponents, which allows them the luxury to not do so themselves and try to improve their favorability ratings.

A third candidate, Senator Roger Wicker of Mississippi, has just launched a new ad that looks to be a positive spot but is in fact an implicit hit at his opponent. Wicker highlights his 32-year marriage and his family life - which is meant to draw a contrast to Ronnie Musgrove’s very public divorce during his gubernatorial tenure. That divorce is one of Musgrove’s weak points on the campaign trail now:

3 Comments | CO-04, CO-Sen, FL-24, GA-Sen, KY-Sen, LA-Sen, MS-Sen | 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

SEIU, DWAF, Freedom’s Watch, NRA: Outside groups step up

October 6, 2008

Four years ago, outside groups played a much greater role in running TV advertisements and organizing on the ground. Such independent efforts are surprisingly not a major part of this year’s election, forcing the campaigns to do most of the grunt work themselves.

That said, there are a few noticeable third-party investments going on right now. That is particularly the case with labor groups, always a major part of the Democrats’ organizing efforts. Unions are sending out mailers and handing out fliers hitting McCain on the economy, and their field efforts are a crucial part of Obama’s efforts to reach out to voters who might be reluctant to vote for the Democrat for racial reasons (the Los Angeles Times’s week-end piece on the race factor in Virginia and on Obama’s efforts to counter it is certainly worth a read).

Now, SEIU is up with what they describe as a seven-figure buy featuring two women discussing rising health care costs:

The spot attempts to capture voter anxiety about the economy, and channel it on an issue in which Democrats enjoy a particularly large advantage (health care). Obama himself has made this a focus of his attacks on the Arizona Senator over the past few days. Meanwhile, the AFL-CIO is sending this new flier blasting McCain as an “economic disaster for the middle class” to one million households.

McCain is getting some help as well, as the NRA continues its anti-Obama efforts with a new spot accusing Obama of wanting to ban firearms. The NRA has said its total investment would be in the eight-figure, certainly enough to have an impact in some swing states. Their new ad tries to raise voters’ worries over crime:

In down-the-ballot races, independent expenditures obviously have the potential to have even greater impact, as the candidates and the national committees do not always have that much money to spend. Furthermore, outside groups have to choose which races to concentrate in, and their spending decisions can tell us a lot about which contests are the most competitive.

In CO-04, the Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund just spent $650,000 on a new attack ad aimed at Maryln Musgrave. That is a very serious investment, especially as it comes on top of hundreds of thousands of dollars DWAF had already poured in the race, and it ensures that the ad will have a real presence in the district. Interestingly, this new ad is not devoted to environmental issues (despite DWAF’s attack ad against Sarah Palin on the subject of aerial hunting of wolves); rather, it goes after Musgrave’s ties to oil companies and accuses her of corruption - accusations that Democrats have been airing in the past few cycles and that are also the topic of the latest ad by Musgrave’s Democratic opponent.

Meanwhile, Republican group Freedom’s Watch is moving in North Carolina to attack Kay Hagan’s fiscal record in the state legislature. Like the other ads I highlighted in this post, this is a significant buy and it is not just meant for cable TV shows and for earned media. Politico was told by Freedom’s Watch that it cost “well over $750,000:”

Interestingly, the ad does not make any new charges against Hagan and recycles the NRSC’s attack ads, despite the fact that independent groups have an opportunity to air tougher ads since the spots are not directly funded by candidate. That said, this is not necessarily a bad thing, as it always Republicans to hammer one theme from all directions and ensure that the attacks really sink in voters’ mind. Furthermore, North Carolina voters are clearly unhappy with the Democrats of the state government as Beverly Perdue’s weakness in the gubernatorial race demonstrates. Tagging Hagan to local Democratic governance could be an effective strategy for the GOP.

Meanwhile, the NRCC is the only group that is being left out of the action. They bought air time in two districts last week (WA-08 and PA-03), but 29 days from the election they have still been unable to budget any further ad investments. They did send out direct mail in a few districts over the week-end however (NJ-03, OH-15, MI-07, all GOP-held and highly vulnerable seats), and mailers can certainly be expensive (between $10,000 and $30,000 in these three cases).

1 Comment | Ads, CO-04, NC-Sen | Permalink
Posted by Taniel

Poll watch: Obama leads in IA, PA, MI while IN remains very tight; Dems lead in AK-AL and CO-04

September 19, 2008

Another day of strong polling results for Obama - this time at the state level. SUSA confirms that the Illinois Senator can feel more confident about Iowa than about many Kerry states, Marist finds larger leads than we have seen lately for Obama in the crucial states of Michigan and Pennsylvania (two states that are quasi-must wins for Obama) and two surveys from Indiana find the race within the margin of error. Who knew the Hoosier State would be polled so much?

What is fascinating about the Marist polls is that the surveys were taken over the week-end (thus before the financial crisis exploded) in Ohio and Pennsylvania, and at the beginning of this week in Michigan. The share of voters who say that they are most concerned about the economy is far greater in the Michigan poll (51%), which explains why Obama has such a large lead and confirms that the dominance of economic issues this week is helping fuel Obama’s comeback. Here’s the full roundup of today’s polls:

  • First, the trackings, where the movement is less uniform than it was yesterday: Obama gains one in Research 2000 (leads 49% to 42%) and in Gallup (leads 49% to 44%). Rasmussen doesn’t move (tied at 48%) and McCain gains 3% in Diego Hotline (but still trails 45% to 44%).
  • Obama leads 47% to 45% in a Marist poll of Ohio. The two are tied among registered voters. Those who say that the economy is the most important issue for them vote Obama by 14%. Obama gets 90% of Democrats. This poll was taken Thursday through Sunday.
  • Obama leads 49% to 44% in a Marist poll of Pennsylvania. The margin is 3% among registered voters. Obama gets 87% of Democrats and leads among independents. This poll was taken Thursday through Sunday.
  • Obama leads 52% to 43% in a Marist poll of Michigan. The margin is the same among registered voters. Obama gets 92% of Democrats, leads by 14% among those who say the economy is the most pressing issue. This poll was taken Tuesday and Wednesday, after the Wall Street collapse.
  • McCain leads 49% to 47% in a Rasmussen poll of Indiana. He led by 6% in August.
  • McCain leads 47% to 44% in an ARG poll of Indiana.
  • Obama leads 54% to 43% in a SUSA poll of Iowa. He gets 89% of Democrats and leads by 11% among independents. Among voters who are sure of their vote, he leads by 15%.
  • McCain leads 53% to 42% in an ARG poll of North Dakota.
  • Obama leads 50% to 44% in an ARG poll of Washington.
  • McCain leads 53% to 38% in a