Archive for the 'MI-07' Category

In House races, both parties land prominent challengers

Published
by
Taniel
on July 17, 2009
in KS-04, MI-07 and MN-06
. 2 Comments

Both parties landed a high-profile House candidate this week, though Democrats have more reason to be satisfied with their recruit than Republicans do.

MN-06: Bachmann gets 3rd Democratic opponent

Democrats already had two credible candidates hoping to face Rep. Michelle Bachmann: 2008 nominee Elwyn Tinklenberg and Maureen Reed. This week, they got a newest entrant who could be Bachmann’s most formidable challenger yet: Assistant Senate Majority Leader Tarryl Clark. Her decision is a sign of confidence: Clark is up for re-election in 2010, so she is giving up her position to run against Bachmann and she will have nothing to fall back on if she loses.

Based on this crowd of candidates, you might think we’re talking about a staunchly blue seat rather than this conservative-leaning district that twice voted for George W. Bush by double-digits and gave John McCain an 8% victory. Bachmann has revealed herself to be such a caricatural representative of the political spectrum’s far-right that she’s sure to be a highly vulnerable target come 2010, but the district is conservative enough that Democrats need a top-tier candidate who can mount a flawless political operation. Clark could be such a candidate.

In the state Senate since 2004, Clark represents portions of three districts that all decisively voted for McCain in 2008 - just like the district as a whole. Her prominent profile makes her the favorite to win the party’s nomination: The winner at a springtime party convention generally goes on to face an uncontested primary and Clark should benefit from establishment support. It also guarantees that a match-up between Bachmann and Clark will be a high-profile affair that wil be covered as such, thus magnifying the effect of any new Bachmann bombshell.

On the other hand, Reed and Tinklenberg definitely remain in the running. The former proved that she should be taken seriously with her surprisingly high fundraiser haul in the second quarter, and the second is vowing to press ahead to get a second chance against the woman he almost defeated last fall.

MI-07: Walberg guarantees high-profile race, is not GOP’s best shot

Republicans insist that Mark Schauer’s 2008 victory was a fluke, that he was helped by Obama’s coattails and by the divisions within the Republican base resulting from Mike Walberg defeating moderate Rep. Joe Schwarz in the 2006 Republican primary. That year, Walberg went on to win the general election as Democrats had not thought of fielding a top candidate but he lost to Schauer by 3% two years later; the 2008 campaign was marked by Schwarz’s decision to cross party lines and endorsed Schauer’s bid, blasting Walberg as a conservative firebrand.

Sure, Schauer might not have won the election had the GOP not split and had the party nominated a less conservative candidate. (This is, after all, a swing district.) But the best way to test that theory is not to renominate the man whose ideological profile was an important reason for the Democrats’ pick-up: This week, Tim Walberg announced that he would seek his old job back via a rematch with Schauer.

Now, Walberg is definitely a strong contender for the seat: He has already served a term, he has higher name recognition than a typical challenger and he can tap into the politico-financial network he acquired in the 2006 and 2008 cycles (especially Club for Growth donors). Furthermore, Michigan is an economically distraught state whose voters could seek to punish Democrats come 2010 (both at the federal and state level). If nothing else, Walberg’s bid guarantees that MI-07 will feature a competitive race well worth watching.

Yet, former lawmakers often do not make the best challengers - especially if their defeat came after a hard-fought race and had nothing to do with the element of surprise. (The NRCC alone spent more than $1 million in the district in 2008.) Also, it’s not like Republicans faced a dearth of candidates: state Senator Cameron Brown and Jackson County Prosecutor Hank Zavislak could have made strong Republican candidates.

KS-04: DCCC lands recruit but district remains tough

The district left open by Rep. Todd Tiahrt is staunchly Republican - Bush received 64%, McCain 58% - and not the best place we would expect Democrats to contest. And yet, the DCCC scored a big enough recruitment coup that KS-04 should at least remain on our radar screen: state Rep. Raj Goyl announced his candidacy last week. Since defeating a Republican incumbent in 2006, Goyl has represented a red-leaning district - giving him as much of a shot for Tiahrt’s House seat as the DCCC can hope for.

While this is undoubtedly good news for Democrats, too much should not be made of it: KS-04, which is far more conservative than Goyl’s state district, did not suddenly become a top-tier race just as HI-01 and CA-47 are not top-tier races because Republicans recruited Charles Djou and Van Tran. It is true that Democrats picked-up open seats that were in even more conservative territory in 2006 and in 2008, but the dynamics of the 2010 cycle will be far different and far less favorable to such upsets. As such, Republicans remain highly favored to win the general election. At the very least, Democrats will need to hope that the GOP primary gets nasty and divisive.

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

Published
by
Taniel
on November 21, 2008
in 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 and WY-AL
. 0 Comments

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.

NRCC’s new expenditures boost defense, play some offense

Published
by
Taniel
on October 30, 2008
in 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 and WY-AL
. 0 Comments

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.

[youtube="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q740nXMu0ZI"]

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:”

[youtube="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSmUQdZG2D4"]

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.

DCCC goes on one of its last spending sprees

Published
by
Taniel
on October 29, 2008
in 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, Uncategorized and WY-AL
. 0 Comments

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:

[youtube="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpMgxd3aiWo"]

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:

[youtube="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTm91xZQhl0"]

Spending, spending, spending (and some cutbacks)

Published
by
Taniel
on October 22, 2008
in 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 and WY-AL
. 0 Comments

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?

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

Published
by
Taniel
on October 22, 2008
in 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 and WI-08
. 0 Comments

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.

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

Published
by
Taniel
on October 14, 2008
in 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 and WI-08
. 0 Comments

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:

[youtube="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eijpzkDXfIM"]

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:”

[youtube="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JroM8wR1sCQ"]

Poll watch: Obama leads in OH, FL; DCCC internals find good news for House Dems

Published
by
Taniel
on October 10, 2008
in AL-02, FL-Pres, GA-Pres, IN-09, KY-Sen, MI-07, MI-09, MO-09, NC-Sen, NE-02, NE-Pres, OH-15, OH-Pres, TX-10 and WA-08
. 0 Comments

I’m not trying to sound like a broken record, but the basic dynamic of the presidential race is not changing: Obama is putting blue states away (he has yet another double-digit lead in Wisconsin in a new survey released today) and he is looking strong in a number of red states - any one of which would be enough to put him over the top. In today’s batch of surveys, Obama leads outside of the margin of error in a survey from Ohio and a survey from Florida.

Both states are of course absolutely crucial for McCain’s prospects - and both are at this point clearly inching away from him. Obama has led 9 of the last 11 Ohio polls, the only McCain edges being a 1% lead in the latest Rasmussen and a late September SUSA. That said, Obama’s margin remains generally tight, and he has not surged as much in this state as in others (like Virginia). In Florida, Obama has led in the past eight polls - and in all conducted in October! While McCain has been within the margin of error in some of these, but Obama has also pulled ahead by 7% or 8% in a few surveys.

Finally, new states continue to pop up as endangered. It was West Virginia yesterday, and Georgia today. The latest Insider Advantage poll from the Peach State finds Obama within the MoE - and closing the gap for the third IA poll in a row. Obama pulled out of the state in mid-September, when McCain’s prospects were at their highest; was that too hurried a decision? The early voting numbers are very encouraging for Democrats, as I have noted a few times, and at the very least Democratic competitiveness could help Jim Martin in the Senate race.

One good news for McCain is that he has a solid lead in NE-02 in the first poll of the district alone since the summer. Obama has just opened a second field office in Omaha in hope of taking that electoral vote - but for now he has a big gap to close. On to the day’s full presidential roundup:

  • Obama retains his dominant position in the day’s tracking polls. He leads 52% to 40% in Research 2000 (+2%), 51% to 41% in Gallup (-1%), 50% to 45% in Rasmussen, 48% to 41% in Diego Hotline (+1%) and 48% to 43% in Zogby (+1%). Interestingly, Zogby specified that the Thursday night sample was the best Obama has had yet and he is above 50% for the first time; also note that Zogby’s partisan weighing is much tighter than other surveys, which explains why it is finding smaller margins.
  • In the first national poll taken entirely after Tuesday’s presidential debate: Obama leads 46% to 39% in a new Fox News/Opinion Dynamics national poll. He led by 6% two weeks ago. Obama’s favorability is now at a high of 60%, while McCain is at 53%. Another interesting internal: 51% say McCain is waging the more negative campaign (versus 27%). And 32% say they are less likely to vote for Obama because of Ayers; 61% say it makes no difference.
  • Obama leads 49% to 44% in an Insider Advantage poll of Ohio. Obama led by 2% last week. This poll was conducted after the presidential debate.
  • McCain leads 48% to 46% in a WSOC-TV poll of North Carolina.
  • McCain leads 49% to 46% in an Insider Advantage poll of Georgia. He led by 6% last week, 8% the week before and 18% before that! Did the Obama campaign pull out too soon?
  • McCain leads 53% to 40% in a Research 2000 poll of Nebraska’s second district. An electoral vote is at stake here.

Meanwhile, in down-the-ballot polls:

  • Kay Hagan leads 49% to 44% in a Rasmussen poll of North Carolina’s Senate race. She led by 3% two weeks ago.
  • Hagan leads 44% to 43% in a WSOC-TV poll of the same race.
  • Mitch McConnell leads 48% to 45% in an internal poll for the Lunsford campaign in Kentucky’s Senate race.
  • In WA-08, a Research 2000 poll finds Rep. Reichert leading 49% to 41% while an internal poll for the Burner campaign find her trailing 48% to 45%.
  • In NE-02, Rep. Terry leads 49% to 39% in a Research 2000 poll. The DCCC surprisingly invested money in this district.
  • In TX-10, GOP Rep. Culberson leads 48% to 40% against Michael Skelly in a Research 2000 poll.
  • In AL-02, Bobby Bright leads Jay Love 46% to 45% in an internal poll, but he led by 10% in his previous internal!
  • In MI-09, a Mitchell Research poll with a 6% MoE has a tie at 43%, while a DCCC poll finds Gary Peters crushing Rep. Knollenberg 46% to 37%. Peters led by 4% in an August DCCC poll.
  • In MI-07, a DCCC poll finds Democrat Mark Schauer leading 43% to 35%.
  • In MO-09, a DCCC poll finds Democrat Judy Baker leading 40% to 36%.
  • In OH-15, a DCCC poll finds Democrat Mary Jo Kilroy leading 44% to 36%, with 7% going to independent candidate Don Eckart.

Senate: Lunsford’s poll comes in the heels of a McConnell internal showing the incumbent up 9%. There is thus a consensus from all pollsters (SUSA, Rasmussen, Mason Dixon and the two campaigns) that this has become a single-digit race, and the race has undoubtedly become competitive, with a slight lean towards McConnell. In North Carolina, Kay Hagan continues to inch ahead and a third institute (Civitas) has a headline on their website proclaiming that Hagan has taken a lead in their poll but they have yet to release the numbers.

House: As always, take internal polls with a grain of salt, but they do paint a very rosy picture for House Democrats and it is noticeable how few internal polls GOP candidates or the NRCC are releasing. The numbers might not be as bad as those of the DCCC polls, but there is no question that House Republicans are facing a disaster while once vulnerable Democratic incumbents (Hill in IN-09) are looking strong. Particularly noteworthy in this batch of surveys is the DCCC’s numbers from Michigan - both Republican incumbents are in big trouble now that the McCain campaign left the state, and any incumbent who polls under 40% is in big trouble, no matter what survey that number is coming from.

That said, two pieces of good news for Republicans: (1) WA-08 remains a disappointment for Democrats, as Research 2000 follows SUSA in finding a comfortable lead for Reichert. Things are not going well for Darcy Burner, who lost by 2% in 2006, as she has high enough name recognition at this point that she cannot benefit from a last minute challenger surge as voters learn about her. It looks like the GOP raised the negatives high enough in 2006 that she is having trouble recovering. (2) There was a point at which AL-02 seemed to be trending for Bobby Bright, but the GOP seems to have closed the gap - and credit to Bright for releasing an internal poll with a very bad trendline for him (-9%).

House: NRCC finally opens wallet, still no match for DCCC

Published
by
Taniel
on October 8, 2008
in AK-AL, AL-02, AZ-03, AZ-05, House, MI-07, MI-09, NH-01, NJ-03, NJ-07, OH-01, PA-03 and WI-08
. 0 Comments

While Democrats have been pouring in millions in House races, the RNCC has been unable to follow suit. Armed with only $14 million as of the end of August (about $40 million less than its Democratic counterpart), the Republican committee had to save its resources for the final stretch. Last week marked the NRCC’s first fall advertising in two hotly contested districts (PA-03 and WI-08) and the committee once again opened its wallet yesterday, spending about $800,000 to buy in five districts.

Four of these districts are held by Republicans, and only in WI-08 is the NRCC on the offensive. The NRCC is also spending in AL-02, PA-03, MI-07 (more than $200,000) and OH-01 (more than $300,000). The two latter buys are very significant - perhaps surprisingly so given the NRCC’s low budget overall. Politico reports that the NRCC has budgeted more than $2 million for these two districts alone.

The committee thus appears to be focused on building a strong defense in its second-tier seats and concentrating its resources in a few districts rather than diluting them in many races and having an effect in none. Indeed, it is remarkable that the NRCC’s expenditures are not going to the party’s most endangered districts, even in the Ohio and New Jersey open seats where the GOP looks unexpectedly competitive. Instead, the NRCC is choosing to invest in districts that a few months ago looked relatively safe for the GOP: Who would have thought that AL-02 (a district Bush won 2:1) would be one of the NRCC’s first five media buys?

And even on the day in which the NRCC started to step up its expenditures, the DCCC’s expenditures served as a reminder of how significant a financial discrepancy there is between the two committees: the DCCC spent more than $7 million yesterday in 41 districts. That’s right, Democrats spent in 36 more districts than Republicans and outspent them more than 8:1! And some of these buys are very significant. A quick overview using our familiar classification (Swing State Project offers the full list):

  • AK-AL should be a category of its own, as the DCCC poured in a stunning $777,254 in the district. This is a relatively cheap market, so this probably (and hopefully for the DCCC’s budget) is intended to buy ad time throughout October all the way to Election Day.
  • Defense: The DCCC is taking nothing for granted, and continues to spend money in Dem-held seats, even those in which the incumbent is looking relatively comfortable. The DCCC spent almost $350,000 in NH-01 (bringing its total to more than a million), more than $230,000 in AZ-05, around $180,000 in FL-16 and IN-09, about $150,000 in LA-06, PA-10 and PA-11. The DCCC also bought time in: AL-05, AZ-08 and TX-23. The New Hampshire ad buy is especially significant, as two recent polls have shown Shea-Porter in a slightly better position than before and Democrats are looking to bury Jeb Bradley before he has a chance to financially recover from a truly bruising primary.
  • Surprising offense: The DCCC’s decision to continue pouring in money in AZ-03 (almost $300,000 yesterday) is surprising, given that this seat was in few people’s radar as of last week. And it might not be as surprising anymore to see the DCCC invest in AL-02, KY-02 and MO-09 (more than $100,000), MD-01 and NM-02 (more than $200,000), but don’t forget how conservative all of these seats are, and how unlikely it was as of two months that the DCCC would make such a prolonged play in them. The DCCC also took a substantial buy in VA-02, a district many thought would not be as competitive this year.
  • Expected offense: The DCCC might be pushing the GOP’s third tier, but it is still as committed to the first and second. Two new big buys in OH-15 and OH-16 put the DCCC’s total above $1 million! And the DCCC continues investing in other open seats that Democrats were once hoping to win more easily - NM-01, NJ-03, NJ-07, IL-11, VA-11. The DCCC is sparing no expenses in seats that are and were expected to be highly competitive, including MN-03 and NC-08 (almost $300,000), OH-01, FL-24, NV-03, NY-26 and MI-09 (more than $200,000), as well as MO-06, CT-04, IL-10, MI-07 and PA-03.

This might seem repetitive to say, and I certainly do not want to sound like a broken record, but the importance of this funding cannot be understated. House candidates do not get as much free media as presidential contenders, and not that many voters watch debates between House candidates… The ground game, direct mailers and a presence on TV airwaves are crucial to the fate of many of these districts, and committee spending can be very important in tipping the balance. While candidates themselves have substantial amounts of money, some of them cannot pull out a win by themselves and the DCCC can ensure that Democrats running in third-tier contests have a shot - while also blooding little-known Republican candidates in open seats.

In fact (via Swing State Project), the RNCC looks to have just secured an $8 million loan - a significant sum that should ensure that the Republican committee can invest in enough districts to avoid disaster, but certainly not enough to offset the Democrats’ advantage (which was $40 million as of the end of August). But Republicans might as well pull all the stops this year: it is unlikely they will face such a potential of a blue tsunami in 2010, making it worth getting indebted now.

Two other notes on House races through a state-level lens. In Michigan, the local GOP seems to be in a state of panic after McCain’s pull-out. I already noted this a few days ago, but Politico has a new story documenting Republican anxieties that Reps. Walberg and Knollenberg are now in graver danger as they cannot rely on McCain’s ground game. Keep in mind that Michigan was truly expected to be one of the ultimate battlegrounds of this presidential election, so these incumbents can hardly be blamed for assuming that McCain’s turnout operation would be in place on November 4th to rally the conservative base.

In New Jersey, Republicans are looking surprisingly competitive in two open seats that many thought Democrats would be favored to win. Recent polls have shown the GOP candidates in NJ-03 and NJ-07 leading within the margin of error. That might be due to New Jersey’s independent voters’ reluctance to vote Democratic in September before undecideds break for the blue team in October, but there will be one year in which voters’ distrust for Trenton will backfire on Democrats, and this could very well be it. The trial of a New Jersey Democrat is giving Republicans an opening to blast state Senator Adler for his connection with controversies surrounding earmarks. Adler recently had to say “I’m not corrupt” - and it’s never a good sign when a politician feels forced to utter such words. Adler has a substantial financial advantage (especially when combined with the DCCC), so Myers can use any free media he can get - and this could help.

Poll watch: Ahead in OH, CO, NV, Obama jumps to huge lead in 3 PA polls; Stevens stays in the game

Published
by
Taniel
on October 7, 2008
in AK-Sen, CA-Pres, CO-Pres, FL-Pres, IN-Pres, MI-07, MN-Pres, NC-Gov, NC-Pres, NH-Pres, NV-Pres, OH-01, OH-16, OH-Pres, PA-11, PA-Pres, Proposition 8 and WI-Pres
. 5 Comments

Today’s numbers are perhaps not as dramatic as yesterday’s, but the overall picture is still as rosy for Barack Obama. And it’s not necessarily because of any number in red states: it is his continuous surge in the four blue states (NH, PA, WI and MN) McCain is actively contesting that is the most remarkable.

In Pennsylvania, three new polls show Obama leading by double-digits - between 10% and 15% - a shocking development in a high-priority state in which the GOP is pouring big sums of money. In Minnesota, a survey shows Obama up by 14%. And his lead is in high single-digits in three polls from New Hampshire and Wisconsin. If he sweeps all four (as seems increasingly likely), Obama would be in an extremely favorable position. He would anchor himself at 264 votes, and he would need only one more of the competitive red states.

Today’s polls show how many he would have to choose from: Obama leads outside of the margin of error in Nevada, Colorado and Ohio (any one of which could be decisive) and is ahead within the MoE in Florida, North Carolina, and a second poll from Ohio. And Indiana continues to look highly competitive. Nothing here is as stunning as Obama’s double-digit leads in two Virginia polls yesterday, but these encouraging results nonetheless - and revealing of how much catching up McCain has to do over the next four weeks, starting with tonight’s debate. On to the full round-up:

  • The tracking polls show Obama in a dominant position, though Diego Hotline has Obama suddenly “collapsing” to a 2% lead. That does seem like an outlier, however, as all other polls show Obama remaining in a solid position: He leads 51% to 42% in Gallup (+1), 52% to 44% in Rasmussen and 51% to 40% in Research 2000 (-1). And we now have a fifth tracking poll, released by Reuters/Zogby. Its introductory numbers have Obama leading 48% to 45%.
  • Obama leads 55% to 40% in a SUSA poll of Pennsylvania. He led by 6% last week.
  • Obama leads 54% to 40% in a Rasmussen poll of Pennsylvania. He led by 8% last week and 4% two weeks ago.
  • Obama leads 48% to 46% in Mason Dixon’s poll of Florida. He also led by 2% in a poll taken two weeks ago.
  • Obama leads 49% to 43% in a PPP poll of Ohio. McCain led by 4% in early September. Obama has gained among registered Democrats: he is now at 84% (up from 78%).
  • Obama leads 48% to 45% in a CNN/Time poll of Ohio, with 3% for Nader and 2% for Barr. In a two-way race, he leads 50% to 47% (he led by 2% three weeks ago).
  • Obama leads 49% to 48% in a CNN/Time poll of North Carolina, with 2% for Bob Barr. In a two-way race, the two candidates are tied at 49%. McCain led by 1% three weeks ago.
  • Obama leads 50% to 42% in a CNN/Time poll of Wisconsin, with Nader at 4% and Barr at 1%. In a two-race race, he leads 51% to 46% (he led by 3% three weeks ago).
  • Obama leads 52% to 42% in a SUSA poll of Wisconsin. Obama gets 90% of the Democratic vote.
  • Obama leads 51% to 43% in a CNN/Time poll of New Hampshire, with Barr at 3% and Nader at 1%. In a two-way race, Obama leads 53% to 45%.
  • McCain leads 48% to 46% in a CNN/Time poll of Indiana, with Barr at 5%. In a two-way race, McCain leads 51% to 46% (he led by 6% three weeks ago).
  • The candidates are tied at 46% in a Research 2000 poll of Indiana. McCain led led by 1% last week.
  • Obama leads 54% to 40% in a Minnesota Public Radio poll of Minnesota taken in the days after the VP debate. In the days before the debate, Obama’s lead was 47% to 43%. The margin of error is a large 5% on the post-debate sample.
  • Obama leads 55% to 39% in a SUSA poll of California.

Meanwhile, in down-ballot numbers:

  • In a SUSA poll of Proposition 8 in California, the yes has taken a narrow led for the first time - 47% to 42%.
  • Ted Stevens captures a 49% to 48% lead in Rasmussen’s latest poll from Alaska’s Senate race. Begich led by 3% in early September and by 13% in late July.
  • Beverly Perdue recaptures the lead in the latest PPP poll of North Carolina’s gubernatorial race. She is ahead 46% to 43%.
  • In OH-01, a Research 2000 poll has Democrat Steve Driehaus leading Rep. Steve Chabot 46% to 44%.
  • In OH-16, a GOP-held open seat, a Research 2000 poll has Democrat Boccieri leading Schuring 48% to 38%.
  • In MI-07, an internal poll for the Schauer campaign shows him leading GOP Rep. Walberg 46% to 36%.
  • In PA-11, an internal poll for the Barletta campaign shows him leading Rep. Kanjorski 47% to 39%. The previous Barletta poll had him ahead by 4%.

Statewide: SUSA has shown Proposition 8 has a higher chance of passing than in PPIC’s polls, but this is the first time the “yes” vote has been ahead in any survey that I am aware of - a reminder that this is very much a high stakes battle. Both parties have some good news, as Beverly Perdue and Ted Stevens are showing signs of life. But it is important to remember that the Alaska Senate race now looks entirely dependent on his trial verdict. If it is a tie now, Stevens would probably lose if found guilty and probably survive if acquitted.

House: More independent House polls, raising the number to 13 today! And the numbers are encouraging for Democrats: OH-16 is rated lean take-over in my rating, but it remains highly competitive, so it is good for Boccieri to open up some space. OH-01 and MI-07 are both GOP-held districts that are rated toss-ups, but both incumbents are in precarious positions if these numbers are to be believed. As for PA-11, Democratic Rep. Kanjorski is the most vulnerable Democratic incumbent, and this is one of only three Dem-held districts that are currently rated lean take-over, so Barletta’s numbers confirm what we have been seeing over the past few months.

Congress: Schwarz defects in MI-07, Feeney slammed on Abramoff

Published
by
Taniel
on September 30, 2008
in FL-24, MI-07 and MO-09
. 2 Comments

A few months after being defeated in his party’s primary, Republican Rep. Gilchrest (MD-01) announced he was endorsing the Democratic candidate in his district. Now, the same scenario has occurred in Michigan’s 7th district: Former Rep. Joe Schwarz, who was defeated by Tim Walberg in the 2006 Republican primary, just endorsed Walberg’s Democratic challenger.

This is an important development in a race that recent polls have shown is highly competitive. Democrats have been arguing that Walberg is too extremist to represent the district, and the defection of more moderate Schwarz will help them make their argument. That said, it’s important not to make too much of this news. Schwarz has been out of office for two years, and while his defection can help Democrats highlight Walberg’s conservatism, endorsements rarely move any numbers by themselves. Two important questions: Will Schwarz actively campaign for Schauer? Will he shoot an ad like Gilchrest did?

As for Rep. Walberg, he is getting some help from conservative group Club for Growth, which recently said it will spend $175,000 in this district. Any outside money is golden for House Republicans who have to face a barrage of Democratic ads without any help from the NRCC. The DCCC has already spent almost $170,000 in this district alone hitting Walberg with ads like this.

—

Meanwhile, in another important House district, the DCCC has released an a in FL-24, the first that slams Rep. Tom Feeney for his ties to convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff. This comes a week after Feeney released a remarkable ad apologizing to his constituents for “embarrassing them.” That apology ad - never a good sign when an incumbent feels compelled to air one - is currently being aired, so the district’s voters are being exposed to this story in a way they were not before - and the DCCC is clearly looking to go for the kill with a brutal spot that hits Feeney for being “one of the most corrupt” congressmen:

[youtube="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBFmdCZVPCI"]

But the DCCC’s most consistent strategy right now is to use the financial crisis to hit Republican candidates across the country on Social Security. This is something we already discussed a few days ago, but the DCCC released a number of new spots yesterday that invoke the Wall Street meltdown to attack the Republicans’ support for privatizing Social Security. Lou Barletta is the target of such an ad in PA-11; in MO-09, the DCCC hits “insurance executive” Blaine Luetkemeyer and warns that this is the “toughest ride since the Great Depression:”

[youtube="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jMlV6E4WAc"]

If Democrats could get away with it, they would always air ads about Social Security. This is an issue that fundamentally favors their candidates, but it is not one that always weighs heavily on voters’ minds. Yet, the stock market’s yoyo and the Wall Street crisis that has been on the frontpage of all newspapers lately makes ads about Social Security savings extremely relevant. And it is precisely because the country’s political environment has shifted towards a focus on bread and butter issues that Democrats are now hoping to nationalize the congressional elections and score a repeat of 2006.

–

Finally, I have alluded a few times to the impact congressional ads might have on the presidential election. Down-the-ballot candidates across the country are airing spots that use the same arguments, the same imagery and often the same slogans as those John McCain and Barack Obama are hurling at each other. I wrote a detailed analysis of this on the Huffington Post, and I will not post the entire piece here since it would be repetitive to readers of this blog who have already seen most of the spots I allude to. But here is my take on why, in this game of message amplification, it is Democrats who stand to gain the most, and Republicans who face the greatest pitfalls:

GOP candidates are trying to convince voters that they are not the typical Republican, that they are unique and can take on the party establishment. But that argument risks becoming a caricature if all Republican candidates say the same thing. It’s one thing for McCain to brand himself as an anti-establishment firebrand, but the entire party cannot credibly run against itself without it becoming a transparent stunt. Can a voter in New Hampshire’s first district come to believe that John McCain, John Sununu and Jeb Bradley are all mavericks? If so, who is the establishment?

There is the parallel possibility that the use of the Bush tag becomes a caricature and thus loses its effectiveness, but the risk is less important as there is nothing contradictory in the Democrats’ argument that the entire Republican Party is tarnished by the Bush years. For a voter in North Carolina to hear over and over again that McCain, Dole and vulnerable Rep. Robin Hayes are all “more of the same” serves as an indictment of the GOP as a whole. By amplifying the volume of Obama’s multi-million ad campaign, the Democrats’ down-the-ballot TV spots could help ensure that Bush remains on the minds of voters when they go to the polls on November 4th.

Poll watch: Obama up in pre-debate trackings, McConnell and Porter in danger

Published
by
Taniel
on September 27, 2008
in CA-04, CT-Pres, FL-13, IA-Pres, KY-Sen, LA-Pres, LA-Sen, MI-07, NV-03, NY-Leg, Nat-Poll and SC-Sen
. 6 Comments

As we now wait to see whether the first debate will move any numbers (and perhaps fulfill the 1980 parallel I have talked about before), any presidential poll released this week-end should be seen as a baseline to see whether either candidate receives a bounce since most will have been in the field before the debate. That’s why we will exceptionally start with some down-the-ballot surveys in today’s poll watch:

  • In what is the most shocking of the day’s polls, Mason Dixon finds the Kentucky Senate race is a dead heat: McConnell leads 45% to 44%, and the race is tied when leaners are not included.
  • In more good news for Southern Democrats, Rasmussen shows Mary Landrieu cruising. She leads John Kennedy 54% to 41% in what is one of the least polled Senate races of the cycles. Landrieu led by 17% in August.
  • McCain’s best friend Lindsay Graham leads 51% to 42% against “Democrat” Bob Conley in a Research 2000 poll of South Carolina’s Senate race.
  • In what is the day’s most instructive new House poll, an incumbent Republican (NV-03’s Porter) released an internal poll in which he only leads 41% to 39%. This is a response to Dona Titus’s survey earlier this week that showed her leading by 9%.
  • In CA-04, a Research 2000 poll finds Democrat Charlie Brown with a narrow lead over Tom McClintock, 46% to 41%. This is a very conservative district, and an open seat.
  • In FL-13, an internal poll for the Jennings campaign finds the Democrat trailing Rep. Buchanan 44% to 40%.
  • In MI-07, Tim Walberg released an internal poll showing him leading 50% to 40% to contest the internal released by his opponent two days ago which showed him trailing by 6%. But Walberg’s poll only sampled 300 voters, with a very large margin of error of 5.7%.
  • For those interested in the crucial battle for New York’s state Senate, Siena polled six of the most competitive districts (how often do we see independent polls released for state legislature races) and finds that Democrats are in a good position to finally take the majority but that Republicans have a fighting chance.
  • Also, SUSA finds that California voters approve 52% to 36% of a proposition that would institute a 48-hour waiting period for minors to have an abortion after their parents are told.

Any time an incumbent thinks that it is a good thing to be getting 41% in an internal poll, you know that they are in real trouble. Porter’s internal is as damning for him than Titus’s internal poll was the other day because it shows that Porter’s campaign is now so worried that he is falling behind that they are looking to celebrate a poll with a 5% margin of error that shows their candiate stuck in the low 40s.

But the day’s most important congressional survey is undoubtedly Mason Dixon’s shocker from Kentucky’s Senate race. Early this week, SUSA released a poll that found a 3% race, which led me to wonder whether Democrats could make Kentucky into their 10th competitive seat. Mason Dixon’s survey answers in the affirmative, and the Senate Minority Leader is finding himself in a real fight. The DSCC has not yet invested in the race, probably since Lunsford can take care of himself and self-fund his campaign; but McConnell remains a formidable candidate with a large war chest and an entrenched incumbent with a well-oiled machine, so national Democrats would probably need to get involved at some point. Also, Lunsford will have to overcome the coattails of the presidential race, which were fatal to Mongiardo in 2004.

But however much Democrats still have work to do, Kentucky’s emergence as a tight battleground in the Senate battle is very worrisome news for the GOP.

Meanwhile, in presidential polling:

  • The day’s trackings were favorable to Obama, though even Friday night’s samples were almost entirely taken before the presidential debate. And for once, all trackings show very similar results! Obama leads by 5% in Gallup (49% to 44%) and Diego Hotline (48% to 43%), by 6% in Rasmussen (50% to 44%) and Research 2000 (49% to 43%).
  • Obama leads 51% to 43% in a Rasmussen poll of Iowa. He led by 5% last month.
  • Obama leads 54% to 38% in a SUSA poll of Connecticut.

These tracking polls might not tell us much about the reaction to the debate, but they underscore that (1) McCain doesn’t appear to have benefited from his Wednesday afternoon gamble, and (2) that it was important it was for McCain to score a game-changer last night. He needed to do what John Kerry succeeded in doing in 2004, when Kerry went in the debate trailing widely and managed to close the gap thanks to the first debate, entering October in a very competitive position. I don’t believe (and neither did the first snap polls) that he succeeded in doing so.