Archive for the 'NV-03' Category

Democrats have to defend fewer freshmen than they did in 1994

Published
by
Taniel
on December 7, 2009
in 2010-general and NV-03
. 2 Comments

Over the past few weeks, I have repeatedly discussed how low a number of vulnerable open seats Democrats have to defend in 2010; even with Dennis Moore and John Tanner’s unexpected retirements, the situation bears no resemblance to anything the party experienced in 1994 or that Republicans had to deal within 2006 and in 2008. Via Swing State Project’s Twitter feed, there is another historical comparison that should prevent Republicans from scoring the huge gains they are hoping for.

Going into 1994, Democrats had two big weaknesses. We’ve talked at length about the first - open seats; they lost 22. Teh second was the large number of junior lawmakers in their caucus: Due to a big wave of retirements in the 1992 cycle and to the redistricting changes of 1991, there were 63 freshmen Democrats running for re-election in 1994. (16 ended up losing.) In 2010, there will be a lower number of Democratic freshmen: 37.

This is a great firewall for the party because freshmen are by far the most vulnerable lawmakers: They have not had time to build a solid infrastructure in the district, they have yet to build the fundraising, name recognition and institutional network that allows so many incumbents to keep their seats indefinitely, and they haven’t been in Congress long enough to tout their experience or their seniority. In short, they have to suffer through the disadvantages of incumbency (insider status, tough votes) without many of its benefits. In 1994, 16 of the 63 freshmen Democrats lost (that’s more than 25%); in 2008, 4of the 5 Democrats who lost their seat were freshmen.

Of course, none of this is to say that 37 freshmen is a small number. Quite the contrary, it’s far larger than the number Republicans had to defend in 2006 (18) and in 2008 (13). Republicans could certainly inflict major damage in Democratic ranks since a red wave would be likely to submerge many of these first-term lawmakers; looking at these 37 Democrats, only 10 are sure to win re-election no matter what which does makes 27 pick-up opportunities for Republicans.

For instance, Mason Dixon released a very rare public poll of a House race this week-end, and the result was not pretty for Democrats in a district (NV-03) that Obama won by 12%: freshman Rep. Dina Titus is tied at 40% with former state Sen. Joe Heck. Now, Heck is a top GOP recruit (at the beginning of the cycle, the NRSC was hoping to get him to challenge Reid) and Titus does manage a healthier 48-32 lead against lesser-known Rob Lauer; she will also draw comfort from the fact that she has a 9% lead among independents and has more room to grow among Dems (she’s at 69%). But it goes without saying that any incumbent who polls at 40% is very vulnerable.

My overall point, then, is merely that 37 should prove insufficient compared to the huge number of pick-ups the GOP has to score to recapture the majority - especially when you combine it to the fact that at this point they only have to worry about 5 open seats and to the fact that the GOP hasn’t made a priority of defeating all 27 aforementioned Democrats. (Ann Kirkpatrick, Eric Massa, Michael McMahon, Kurt Schrader or Scott Murphy don’t face that worrisome a cycle for now.)

What’s important to emphasize is that picking-up open seats and beating freshmen can often be done easily. It becomes obvious early in the fall that a district is going to switch so that neither party devotes much attention (and money) to it and the battle is displaced somewhere else; in 2006 and in 2008, Democrats put countless of districts in the bag like this, which allowed them to expand the map. On the other hand, entrenched incumbents can be beat - but that almost always takes a major battle that consumes resources; there’s only so many veterans who can be ousted like that.

In short: Republicans’ ability to expand the map to districts that have sometimes not been contested in decades positions them to make substantial gains, but to approach a 41 seat pick-up they’d need more easy opportunities than they have. Democrats did short of that number in 2006 and in 2008 - and it’s not like the environment (or the number of open seats they had a shot at) left a lot to be desired.

The electoral consequences of changes in districts’ racial composition

Published
by
Taniel
on October 13, 2009
in CA-03, CA-10, CA-11, CA-25, FL-12, FL-15, NJ-07, NV-03, TX-10, TX-24 and VA-11
. 8 Comments

One often used measure of a district’s vulnerability to takeover is its presidential vote, but the 2008 cycle has made matters confusing. What should we do with districts whose 2008 movement far exceeds the national movement?

For instance: Should national parties trying to decide how much attention to devote to IN-9 look to 2004 (an 18% Bush victory) or 2008 (a 1% Obama district) as most reflective of the district’s partisan leanings?  That question can be translated in another way: Should we hold Obama’s over-average gain in that particular district as a fleeting consequence of ephemeral circumstances (for instance an unbalance in campaign spending) or as the reflection of a more fundamental demographic and partisan transformation?

This morning, Swing State Project published a fascinating analysis of congressional districts’ racial composition changes between 2000 and 2008 that helps answer that question. The post has lot of important demographic tidbits. First, clear evidence of the gentrification of urban districts, especially in New York: four of the ten districts with the biggest white gain (in terms of percentage) are in NYC. Second, confirmation that African-Americans are increasingly moving into the suburbs, especially in Georgia: the two districts that have seen the largest African-American growth are in the Atlanta suburbs.

There are a lot of ways in which to read this data, but the point of my post is to point out the electoral consequences: Some of these districts with big demographic changes are also on the list of those that swung to Obama by big margins. That means that their political movement is a long-term transformation - one that is likely to continue in the foreseeable future, very seriously endangering Republicans and solidifying Democrats who occupy these seats.

All of these questions are particularly important for the DCCC to ponder in California, where 9 districts (8 of them represented by a Republican) swung from Bush to Obama - all in large movements ranging from 15% to 20%. And 3 of these 9 are on the list of 25 districts in which the share of the white population decreased the most!

  • One is represented by a Democrat: Jerry McNerny’s CA-11. It was 64% white in 2000, when it voted for Bush by 8%; it is now 51% white, and voted for Obama by 10%.
  • Two are represented by Republicans: McKeon’s CA-25 and Lungren’s CA-03. The former was 57% white in 2000, when it voted for Bush by 14%; it’s now 44% white, and it voted for Obama by 1%. The latter was 74% white in 2000, when it voted for Bush by 14%; it’s now 63% white, and it narrowly went for Obama.

When deciding which California seats are worth targeting, the DCCC should look very closely at CA-25 and CA-03, as they can now point to a concrete demographic reason that these districts so dramatically swung to Obama in 2008. By contrast, the NRCC might reconsider the high priority it’s put on CA-11: The district’s quite dramatic demographic evolution over the past 8 years makes the GOP pointing to Bush’s victories inadequate. McNerny looks less vulnerable.

Similar conclusions can be drawn in other districts, starting with Dem-held districts where incumbents can breath easier:

  • NV-03 (Titus): 69% white to 59% white; 1% Gore to 12% Obama
  • VA-11 (Connolly): 69% white to 57% white; 7% Bush to 15% Obama
  • CA-10 (vacant): 65% white to 55% white; 12% Gore to 32% Obama

Note that VA-11 is a very interesting case, as no one would point to the 2000 or 2004 results to argue that Connolly should be considered vulnerable. Northern Virginia’s blue drift has been accepted by most as a long-term phenomenon, and Obama’s 15% victory is recognized as a better indicator of Connolly’s (lack of) vulnerability. Also: I am only including CA-10 because a special election is coming up, and this gives us a useful indicator as to whether the GOP has a chance of defeating Lieutenant Governor Garamendi.

Then, we have GOP-held seats about which Republicans have reason to start worrying:

  • FL-12 (Putnam): 72% white to 63% white; 10% Bush to 1% McCain
  • TX-24 (Marchand): 64% white to 52% white; 36% Bush to 11% McCain
  • TX-10 (McCaul): 66% white to 55% white; 33% Bush to 11% McCain
  • FL-15 (Posey): 78% white to 69% white; 8% Bush to 3% McCain
  • NJ-07 (Lance): 79% to 70% white; 1% Bush to 3% Obama

Pay particular attention to FL-12, which will host an open seat race in 2010 since Putnam is running for statewide office. Based on the district’s giving Bush two large victories - not only 10% in 2000, but 16% in 2004 - the district is described as hostile to Democrats despite the 2008 election’s near tie. However, the fact that the partisan evolution coincidences with quite a stark demographic change suggests that we should pay more attention to last year’s results when deciding whether Democrats have a chance at picking-up the seat.

TX-24 and TX-10 still remain too conservative to be top-tier opportunities for the DCCC, though Democrats are mounting a spirited challenge to McCaul. Yet, it is clear that the demographic evolution is so rapidly threatening GOP dominance over these regions that it is probably only a matter of time before Democrats grow truly competitive.

That gets us to one final observation: The demographic problem the GOP faces in these districts is only the preview of a broader challenge they’ll face nationally as the share of the white population decreases in the United States as a whole. This will be a problem for Republicans at the presidential level and at the House level; it’s not like other districts will get whiter in a way to benefit Republicans because the GOP is losing its grip on the district I listed above. Republicans have to urgently find a way to update their electoral coalition; that they’ve alienated Hispanic voters in recent years certainly won’t help.

NV-03, VA-05 and KS-02: Parties land credible challengers with state Senate on their resume

Published
by
Taniel
on October 12, 2009
in KS-02, NV-03 and VA-05
. 6 Comments

Joe Heck’s switch puts NV-03 on the map

I mentioned former state Senator Joe Heck’s switch from the Governor’s race to NV-03 in my post about Nevada’s statewide elections, but that decision is just as crucial at the House level: It is one more unexpectedly strong recruitment coup by the NRCC, a stark contrast to the 2008 cycle during which House Republicans were certainly not accustomed to this sort of success.

If nothing else, Heck is a definite step-up from Rep. Titus’s first challenger - banker John Guedry - who was highly-touted by the NRCC before he announced he was dropping out two weeks ago.

In fact, to the extent that the NRCC is so insistent that Titus is one of their top 2010 targets, Heck is as good a candidate as they could have hoped for. He was already considered a highly credible candidate at the statewide level (first in the Senate race, as he considered challenging Harry Reid; then in the gubernatorial race) so he should be all the stronger now that he is downgrading his ambitions. Credibility brings the ability to fundraise and the attention of the national party - both crucial elements of successful congressional challenges.

Yet, let’s be clear on the fact that Heck’s entry does not suddenly make Titus one of the year’s most vulnerable incumbents. To insist that she is endangered, Republicans point to the fact that Titus won with only 49% of the vote last year; but she was running against an incumbent (Jon Porter) whose electability is respected enough that he was long considered Reid’s top potential challenger. Second, Heck brings his own problems to the table: He lost his re-election race last year, so he’ll have to show that he has what it takes to overcome Nevada’s blue drift.

That gets us to the fact that NV-03 is far from an obvious district for the GOP to target: It gave Obama a double-digit victory and barely went for Bush by 1% in 2004. Even if 2010 will not be as favorable for Democrats as 2008, the GOP will have to take into account political conditions specific to Nevada - namely Jim Gibbons’s and John Ensign’s weight on the Republican brand.

The GOP field against Perriello getting settled

Freshman Democrat Tom Perriello, who scored one of the rare upsets of the 2008 cycle, has been at the very top of the GOP’s list since his 727 vote victory was confirmed in December. Republicans argue that Perriello was only able to overcome the district’s red lean (VA-05 voted for Bush by double-digits, for McCain by 3%) because of Obama’s coattails and a boost in African-American turnout, two factors that are unlikely to save him in 2010.

I am unconvinced that Perriello’s victory is the fluke the GOP portrays it to be (not only did he overperform by 3% relatively to Obama but the fact that his victory was Election Night’s arguably only surprise Democratic pick-up suggests it can’t just be explained by the magnitude of the blue wave) but there is no denying that he is endangered. And he won’t be able to bank on the GOP failing to recruit a top-tier challenger: state Senator Robert Hurt just took the first step towards a 2010 run. Hurt will not have the Republican primary for himself, but he starts as the clear favorite to move on to the general election. A match-up with Perriello should be a strong takeover opportunity for the GOP.

Democrats get a recruit of their own in KS-02

We wouldn’t necessarily expect to see KS-02 on the DCCC’s priority list, since it gave John McCain a double-digit victory in 2008. Lynn Jenkins scored a convincing victory that same year, first in a competitive Republican primary and then against incumbent Democrat Nancy Boyda in the general election. That Jenkins’s win was one of the night’s few GOP pick-ups confirms that this district is difficult territory for Democrats.

Yet, Democrats recently landed a credible candidate to take on Jenkins: state Senator Laura Kelly. In office since 2004, Kelly is the chamber’s Democratic whip (note that her party only controls 9 of the Senate’s 40 seats).  The Kansas City Star notes that Kelly represents a Republican district; the 58% she received last year in her re-election race thus speak well of her electability in hostile territory.

This profile certainly suggests the Democrat’s bid should be taken seriously; a state Senator can’t be sure to make a race competitive, but she is at least guaranteed to attract the attention of donors and of the national party. It’s worth keeping an eye on KS-02 all the more because of the unwanted attraction Jenkins attracted recently over her depressing comment calling for the GOP to find “a great white hope.” The incumbent was forced to apologize.

All of this said, Jenkins remains clearly favored to win a second term. Sure, Democrats picked-up the seat in 2006, but that was stunning upset that occurred in a fundamentally different environment and against a far weaker Republican incumbent: Jim Ryun’s hold on the district was weak enough that he failed to win the GOP nomination when he sought a rematch in 2008. Unless 2010 becomes friendly to Democrats nationally, it’s hard to see a district that gave McCain 55% dump its Republican incumbent.

Let’s also not forget that Kansas’s down-ballot Republicans will be helped by the coattails of the top of the ticket: GOP candidates will be facing little competition in the Senate and Governor’s contests, despite both posts being open. Democrats did just get their first Senate candidate, as retired advertising executive Charles Schollenberger announced his candidacy; but it will take more for the winner of the GOP’s Moran-Tiahrt primary not to waltz to a general election victory.

NRCC puts another veteran Dem in its crosshairs, loses wealthy recruit in NV-03

Published
by
Taniel
on October 1, 2009
in IL-14, NV-03 and WV-01
. 10 Comments

Former Republican Rep. Charlie Bass’s decision making process - should he run for New Hampshire’s Senate seat? should he seek to recapture his old House seat, which is now open? -  has been closely monitored for months. Yesterday, it looked like Bass had finally reached a decision, as he formed an exploratory committee in NH-2 - exciting news for the NRCC but also a relief for the NRSC, since the GOP’s Senate committee has long already chosen Kelly Ayotte as its favored candidate.

Yet, within hours Bass stated that the committee should not be taken as a decision: He simply needed a place to put the contributions he had been receiving. (The third quarter ended yesterday, so candidates are now thinking about disclosure duties.) His choice to create a House committee obviously suggests that’s the direction he is leaning in, but we’ll have to wait a few more weeks before drawing any final conclusions. Thankfully, other politicians are being less indecisive.

WV-01: Yet another typically safe Democrat draws credible opponent

Democratic Rep. Alan Mollohan might represent a heavily Republican district - John McCain received 57% of the vote last fall - but he hasn’t faced a tight race in decades, so much so that the 64% he received in 2006 was his lowest result in 22 years. But that is not discouraging the GOP: ever since state Senator Clark Barnes announced he’d jump in the race last week, the NRCC has signaled its determination to target Mollohan.

The situation is here very similar to that other entrenched Democratic lawmakers who are suddenly being targeted (Snyder, Skelton): Since they have not faced competitive races in decades, there is no evidence that any of them are vulnerable. That is not to say they will all easily prevail, simply that we will not know until well into 2010 who among them has a weaker hold on their constituents than is commonly thought. If the GOP recruits top-tier challengers against enough veteran Democrats, I expect some of them will be in trouble; but that will be determined by how much they’ve kept contact with their constituents and whether they remember how to run a competitive campaign rather than whether or not their district is conservative.

Add to that West Virginia’s continued attachment to the Democratic brand at the local and congressional level and it’s way too early to say that Mollohan is in trouble. For now, WV-01 joins districts like AR-01 and MO-07 on the list of “potentially competitive” races.

NV-03: NRCC loses touted contender

Having made Dina Titus a major 2010 target, the NRCC was excited about the candidacy of bank executive John Guedry. Yet, they are now back to the drawing board since Guedry announced he was dropping out of the race for personal reasons. The main reason this is bad news for the GOP is that Guedry would have probably invested a substantial amount of money in the race, allowing the NRCC not to worry too much about it. That’s exactly the type of contender the party needs in seats that are not obviously ripe for the taking (Obama won the district by double digit).

On the other hand, Guedry’s departure might be the opportunity for the GOP to recruit a stronger candidate: Private sector experience does not a top-tier candidate make, and it is very plausible that Guedry would have fallen flat anyway. Via SSP, another Republican is reportedly already signaling his interest since Guedry’s exit: former state Senator Joe Heck.

Of course, Guedry’s dropping out can be described as nothing but bad news for the NRCC until we get some sort of confirmation that Heck is actually seriously considering changing races. But that shouldn’t prevent us from also saying that, if he does jump in, Heck would be a step-up from Guedry: He is currently running for Governor and until this spring he was considered a possible challenger to Harry Reid. Needless to say, a politician who is considered strong at the statewide level will be highly credible if he downgrades his ambition at the House level. Republicans are already enjoying the benefits of this in PA (Meehan) and AR (Griffin).

IL-14: Hastert (Jr.) will face competition in GOP primary

In former Speaker Dennis Hastert’s old district, the field of Republicans looking to take on Rep. Bill Foster keeps growing. State Senator Randy Hultgren just formed a campaign committee, but he’ll first have to beat attorney Ethan Hastert, whose last name gives him instant name recognition in the district; there should be at least 3 other contenders in the primary.

Given my continued skepticism at Hastert’s chances - beyond his young age, his obvious connections to the GOP’s House leadership and his work as an assistant for Scooter Libby would make it easy for Democrats to portray him as a continuity of the Bush years - I can only see Hultgren’s entry as good news for the GOP as they can hope to field a stronger challenger to Foster. Furthermore, Illinois is one state parties have no reason to worry about divisive primaries since the nominees will be chosen very early (in February), leaving them ample time to prepare the general election.

On the other hand, I am not sure how much of Hultgren’s legislative district coincides with IL-14: His predecessor in the state Senate was Peter Roskam, who is now representing the state’s 6th district. It also remains to be seen whether the NRCC is at all justified in eying IL-14: Obama triumphed by 11% in the district, so Foster does not represent as hostile territory as other Democrats.

Ups and downs of House recruitment

Published
by
Taniel
on August 18, 2009
in IN-03, NV-03 and OH-18
. 0 Comments

In OH-18, NRCC loses its last top-tier option

The NRCC has decided that Rep. Zach Space is vulnerable enough that he should be one of just a few Democrats to already be targeted by a TV ad. And there is indeed no doubt that Space is sitting in a difficult district (Bush won OH-18 by 15%, McCain by 7%). Yet, he has already had three years to entrench himself and he proved his political appeal by winning two tough races in 2006. In short, Republicans can’t expect to get very far if they don’t field a strong challenger.

Unfortunately for the GOP, it just suffered a major setback: State Senator Jimmy Stewart, who had met NRCC officials in July, is signaling that he will not run. “I don’t anticipate running for Congress next year,” he said, just a month after Roll Call flagged him as the “ideal candidate.” Stewart was the last remaining member of a trio of state legislators the NRCC was hoping to recruit in this district: state Senator John Carey and state Rep. Hottinger, both of whom were highly touted just a few months ago, have already ruled out runs.

If confirmed, Stewart’s decision, combined with those of Carey and Hottinger, reduces Space’s vulnerability and should lower his position on the NRCC’s list. The GOP now has to find a Plan B - probably a former state legislator, a lesser-known politician who will have to prove herself or a wealthy self-funder. (Attorney Jeanette Moll in the race, but it doesn’t look like the GOP is satisfied with that.) This is not to say that Space is now safe, but his vulnerability is now far more dependent on the national environment than it would have been had Stewart ran.

A banking executive against Titus

For a more concrete idea of what the GOP might be left with in OH-18, let’s turn to NV-03: In the district Dina Titus picked-up in 2008, the NRCC is now touting the candidacy of bank executive John Guedry. It’s definitely a positive sign for Republicans to have a credible candidate to tout against any freshman representative, as those should be the first to fall if the environment gets tough for Democrats. But let’s also be clear on the fact that a wealthy recruit from the private sector does not a top-tier contender make.

Sure, such a recruit can emerge as a politically sharp candidate who proves his skills on the trail, in attracting donors and in opening his own bank account to his campaign operatives - but it is just as probable that Guedry will fall flat, fail to gain traction and be weighed down by his two decades working in financial services - probably not the ideal resume line in this time of bank-induced economic crisis.

Moreover, this does not look like the type of districts Republicans should concentrate on - especially if they have no top tier candidate to field. NV-03 went for Al Gore in 2000, gave George Bush a 1% victory in 2004 and voted for Obama by double-digits last fall. Titus might have won with only 47% of the vote, but she was facing a crowded general election field and she defeated an entrenched incumbent, Jon Porter, who was deemed so politically powerful that he was generally considered to be Harry Reid’s toughest potential opponent in 2010. In short, Republicans needs for Guedry to prove a marvelous campaigner and for voters to truly turn against Democrats before we put NV-03 on the radar screen.

A repeat candidate in IN-03

In 2006, no one paid attention to Mark Souder’s re-election race but the Republican was held to an 8% victory - the smallest of his career - against an underfunded Democrat. Frustrated that it had not made the most of that opportunity, the DCCC did not lose sight of IN-03 in 2008: But after spending hundreds of thousands on the district, Democrats suffered quite a setback when Souter triumphed by 15% - outpacing McCain’s 13% margin. So what should Democrats take out of these two races? Is Souder vulnerable under the right conditions, and if so why did win so decisively despite Obama’s coattails in 2008?

That’s not an easy question to answer, but it’s one the DCCC will have to consider them quickly: Tom Hayhurst, the former Fort Wayne councilman who was the party’s nominee 2006, just announced he will run again in 2010. Hayhurst already proved that he was a worthy candidate - and the contrast between his unexpected showing and Montagano’s poor result makes him look even better. If you think that part of Souder’s improvement comes from the fact that Montagano was a poorer fit for the district than Hayhurst, then the DCCC might have a chance.

But if you think - and I believe I do - that the most important change was that Souder saw the threat coming and prepared himself rather than be taken by surprise, then the district simply remains way too Republican for Democrats to have much of a chance no matter who they recruit: If Democrats failed to unseat Souder last year, when Indiana was as hospitable to Democrats as it has been in decades, how much will they be able to do in 2010, a cycle that is bound to be tougher? Sure, IN-03 shouldn’t revert to its ruby-red 2004 coloring (Bush won 68% to 31%) but it should still prove tougher to crack than it was last fall.

NRCC hoping to go where it hasn’t gone lately

Published
by
Taniel
on April 13, 2009
in AR-01, AR-02, FL-02, FL-18, IL-11, LA-03, MI-01, NH-01, NV-03, NY-01, NY-24, OH-15, OH-18, OR-04, PA-03 and TX-17
. 2 Comments

Early in a cycle, national parties launch large waves of attack that target dozens of U.S. representatives, many of whom will not end up facing a competitive race. Yet, the list of chosen districts tells us a lot about the party’s offensive strategy - and the NRCC is letting us know that it intends to mount a real offensive for seats that are not commonly thought of as top-tier opportunities.

The NRCC’s first mass offensive, which occurred in early February, targeted 30 House Democrats with radio ads devoted to the stimulus bill. Now, the committee is targeting 43 Democrats for supporting Barack Obama’s budget - or rather, for supporting Nancy Pelosi’s budget, since the GOP is doing its best to separate congressional Democrats (who are generally unpopular) from the President (who enjoys high approval ratings).

33 of these incumbents are only being stung by robocalls; radio ads are running in 9 districts; and only 1 Democrat - Ohio’s Zach Space -  is finding himself targeted by a TV ad.

“Just how fast is Congressman Zack Space spending your money?” asks the announcer. “Newspapers say Space and Nancy Pelosi authorized 1.2 trillion dollars in spending in less than two months. Now they’re spending even faster. Nancy Pelosi pushed a budget with a trillion dollar deficit. And Space voted to let Nancy Pelosi get her way.”

Space picked-up an open seat in 2006, boosted by the scandals that engulfed Rep. Ney; in 2008, he easily won re-election, 60% to 40%. He is certainly vulnerable in 2010 because he represents a conservative district that voted for McCain 52% to 45%; yet, he looks to be a good fit for the district and he is less obviously endangered than many Democrats who won their first election last fall.

That the NRCC is choosing to make this the one district in which they are airing a TV ad is a recognition on the GOP’s party that OH-18 is the type of district they will need to contest if they want any hope of meaningfully cutting the Democrats’ majority next year: Just as winning back TX-22 and KS-02 was not enough in 2008, winning back heavily conservative seats like AL-02 and ID-01 will not do much for the GOP in 2010. What they need is to reconquer conservative districts with relatively entrenched incumbents.

Just like OH-18, many of the 43 districts that are now being targeted by the NRCC meet that description. First, the 9 districts that are being targeted by radio ads:

Allan Grayson (FL-18), Debbie Halvorson (IL-11), Charlie Melancon (LA-03), Dina Titus (NV-03), Carol Shea-Porter (NH-01), Michael Arcuri (NY-24), Mary Jo Kilroy (OH-15), Kathy Dahlkemper (PA-03) and Chet Edwards (TX-17)

5 of these Democrats were first elected in 2008, and 2 others are sophomore lawmakers. While there are no surprises on this list, it is noteworthy that a number of these districts are not what we would consider the early top-tier of 2010 contests. While Dahlkemper, Shea-Porter and Grayson are sure to be on the GOP’s target list, others should be harder to defeat.

Dina Titus and Mary Jo Kilroy represent blue-trending districts, and the GOP’s confidence is certainly noteworthy - especially in NV-03, which dramatically swung to Democrats last year. While IL-11 remains a swing district, Debbie Halvorson did easily win her open seat and Obama prevailed by a decisive margin. Michael Arcuri was supposed to be ultra-safe last year but he received a shockingly low 52% - a clear indication that he has a weak base of support in NY-24 - but he will not let himself be dulled by a false sense of security in 2010. As for Charlie Melancon, he represents a conservative district but looks to be well entrenched - at least until the next round of redistricting disrupts the state’s congressional lines.

In other words, districts like NV-03, OH-15 and IL-11 are places Democrats are favored to keep but in which the GOP needs to do well if it wants to regain its status as a party that should be taken seriously and could conceivably regain a majority. The same principle applies to the 33 Democrats who are only the target of robocalls:

John Adler (NJ-03); Jason Altmire (PA-04); Tim Bishop (NY-01); John Boccieri (OH-16); Leonard Boswell (IA-03); Allen Boyd (FL-02); Chris Carney (PA-10); Gerry Connolly (VA-11); Peter DeFazio (OR-04); Steve Driehaus (OH-01); Brad Ellsworth (IN-08); Gabby Giffords (AZ-08); John Hall (NY-19); Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (SD-AL); Baron Hill (IN-09); Jim Himes (CT-04); Steve Kagen (WI-08); Paul Kanjorski (PA-11); Larry Kissell (NC-08); Ron Klein (FL-22); Dan Maffei (NY-25); Eric Massa (NY-29); Jerry McNerney (CA-11); Dennis Moore (KS-03); Gary Peters (MI-09); Loretta Sanchez (CA-47); Mark Schauer (MI-07); Kurt Schrader (OR-05); Joe Sestak (PA-07); Heath Shuler (NC-11); Vic Snyder (AR-02); John Spratt (SC-05); Bart Stupak (MI-01).

The inclusion of some of these districts is expected: Adler, Altmire, Carney, Driehaus, Kagen, Kanjorski, Kissell, Klein, Massa, McNerney, Moore, Peters and Schauer have all picked-up their seat over the past two cycle, and the GOP has to test their vulnerability as soon as possible to prevent them from having the time to entrench themselves. Other districts could conceivably be vulnerable, but it’s difficult to consider Ellsworth, Herseth Sandlin, Hill or Maffei as even being part of the second-tier of competitive races - especially as the GOP has no credible candidate in sight in some of these states.

Finally, there are some truly surprising inclusions on this list, at least considering the playing field we have gotten used to over the past two cycles: Tim Bishop (NY-01), Allen Boyd (FL-02), Peter DeFazio (OR-04),  Vic Snyder (AR-02) and Bart Stupak (MI-01) are certainly not names we have gotten to used to hearing in the context of competitive races as they regularly coast to comfortable re-elections. Yet, all of these Democrats represent swing districts that are very competitive at the presidential level - all but OR-04 were won by George W. Bush in 2004, and Bush prevailed in that district four years earlier (making OR-04 one of only two district to switch from Bush to Kerry).

Bishop, Boyd, DeFazio, Snyder and Stupak remain undoubtedly favored to win another term, and for the GOP to even make one of them worry about re-election would already be a significant achievement. So the fact that these Democrats are being targeted should once again be taken as a sign that the GOP needs that it needs to seriously think about expanding the field to places it did not seriously contest over the past few cycles - places (like OR-04) it has not seriously contested for decades!

And it looks like the GOP is already having some success in its simple goal of being competitive in districts that should be competitive on paper. In AR-01 Rep. Marion Berry has had little reason to be concerned about keeping his job since he first won his seat in 1996; yet, the district has taken a dramatic swing rightward over the past decade. While AR-01 voted for Al Gore by 1% in 2000, it chose George W. Bush by 5% in 2004 and John McCain by 16% in 2008 - a dramatic collapse of Democratic performance that could open the door to a credible Republican congressional challenge.

For the NRCC to successfully put AR-01 on the radar screen will require a top-notch candidate, and the GOP is already touting buisnessman Rick Crawford, known in the district for his agricultural broadcasting. Crawford, who just formed an exploratory committee, could be all the GOP needs to test how loyal Arkansas remains to its Democratic history.

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.

Poll watch: Obama maintains wide lead nationally, PA tightens a bit, Merkley might already have won

Published
by
Taniel
on November 1, 2008
in CA-Pres, FL-Pres, IA-Pres, KY-Sen, MN-Pres, MN-Sen, NV-02, NV-03, OR-Pres, OR-Sen, PA-Pres, Proposition 8, SD-Pres, WI-Pres and WY-AL
. 0 Comments

Update: A new national CBS News poll brings Democrats great news, as Barack Obama now leads 54% to 41% in a poll conducted Tuesday through Friday - up from the 11% lead Obama had in the previous CBS News poll (that one had been conducted from the 25th to the 28th). Once again, Obama is above 50%, McCain is in the low 40s. (I apologize for being repetitive, but the race has been remarkably stable for weeks).

In what is perhaps the GOP’s worst internal number of the poll, 48% say that McCain will raise their taxes versus only 47% who think Obama will do so - a sign that McCain’s tax offensive has failed to destabilize Obama. Furthermore, Obama leads by 19% among those who have already cast their ballot (about 20% of the sample), a margin that corresponds to other polls we have been seeing.

Original post: Three days from the election, Barack Obama retains a commanding lead that has barely budged over the past few weeks. There is no evidence of a last minute McCain push: the margin widens in four of the day’s seven tracking polls and it remains stable in two others. While there is some day-to-day variation, both candidates have been oscillating within the same range for weeks: Obama is at or above 51% in five of the seven tracking polls, while McCain is still in the low 40s (42% to 44%, with a high at 46% in Rasmussen).

Worse still for McCain, Obama is ahead in tracking polls that have a wide partisan gap (Washington Post/ABC, for instance) as well as those that hypothesize a far tighter breakdown (Zogby and IBD/TIPP, for instance). While the size of his lead varies according to the turnout model pollsters use, there is no disagreement on whether he is ahead.

In fact, the best news for Obama today might be that we are starting to get an answer on which turnout model best predicts this year’s election. Today marks the very first time that there is no difference between Gallup’s two likely voter models (the traditional and the expanded); Obama is usually further ahead in the expanded model. Gallup attributes this partly to the fact that 27% of respondents say they have already cast a ballot, locking them in the likely voter model no matter what their prior voting history. This suggests that sporadic voters are making a greater share of the electorate than the “traditional” LV format hypothesizes.

Then there is Zogby, of course, whose three-day average has a 5% lead for Obama but who warns that the tide might be turning. Last night, the Drudge Report treated its readers with a shock headline, proclaiming that McCain had seized a 1% lead in the Friday sample of Zogby’s tracking poll. Beyond the fact that one night samples are not meant to be treated as a full survey - which is the whole point of a tracking poll - this once again raises questions about Zogby’s theatrics and about his professionalism; it is silly to treat any movement as an earth-shattering change of momentum, and so is leaking your results to Drudge hours before posting them on your website. Furthermore, none of the six other tracking polls have found a similar Friday tightening - quite the contrary.

All of this said, Republicans can take some comfort in the latest Pennsylvania polls - and remember that there is no early voting so no one’s vote has been cast in stone just yet. The five most recent surveys - Rasmussen, Strategic Vision, Mason Dixon, Morning Call and Rasmussen again - have all found McCain gaining ground, and ARG’s first poll since mid-September has a 6% margin. Rasmussen and Strategic Vision have the exact same trend line (Obama up double-digit three weeks ago, up high single-digits last week and now up by 4% and 5%), while today marks the first time that Obama’s margin is down to single digits in Morning Call’s tracking poll.

That said, 4% to 8% gap might have made Democrats anxious three weeks ago, but we are now three days from the election and Obama remains ahead outside of the margin of error in all polls from the state. There is very little time for McCain to finish closing that gap, and it is important to note that Obama remains above 50% in both Rasmussen and Morning Call. Finally, Republicans are concentrating their efforts in the Keystone State (First Read reports that  push-polling is underway in the state) while Obama has no plan to visit the state until Tuesday, making some tightening inevitable.

The bottom-line remains: Pennsylvania has become a must-win for McCain, and even an upset in the Keystone State would need to be accompanied by a sweep of nearly all competitive red states (Obama is ahead in two new Florida polls and tied in a third, underscoring the magnitude of the challenge).

  • Trackings: Obama gains 1% in Rasmussen (51% to 46%), in Research 2000 (51% to 44%), in Gallup (52% to 42%, the same margin as in the LVT model in which Obama gains 2%; he leads by 11% among RVs) and 1% in IBD/TIPP (48% to 43%). The margin remains stable in Hotline but Obama crosses 50% (51% to 44%) and in Washington Post/ABC (53% to 44%, though independents split equally). Obama loses 2% in Zogby (49% to 44%). Obama’s leads are thus: 5%, 5%, 5%, 7%, 7%, 9%, 10%.
  • Gallup finds that 27% of likely voters have already cast a ballot and that they skew more towards Obama than other voters, a development that might explain why the two LV models now coincide.
  • Pennsylvania: Obama leads 51% to 47% in a Rasmussen poll conducted on Thursday, down from an 7% lead last week and a 13% lead three weeks ago; this is primarily due to Obama’s decline among registered Democrats, among which he receives 75% of the vote. Obama leads 52% to 44% in the Morning Call tracking poll, the first time since October 2nd the margin has been down to single-digits. Obama leads 51% to 45% in an ARG poll conducted Wednesday and Thursday. (For what it’s worth, PPP is saying that they are currently in the field in Pennsylvania and see very little for Obama to worry about.)
  • Florida: Two pollsters release their second poll in as many week - and find contrasting trends. Obama leads 49% to 47% in a Mason Dixon poll conducted Wednesday and Thursday; McCain trailed by 2% last week. The candidates are tied in a Datamar poll conducted Wednesday and Thursday (Obama led by 5% 4 days before). Finally, Obama leads 50% to 46% in an ARG poll conducted Wednesday and Thursday.
  • Iowa: Obama leads 53% to 39% in a Research 2000 poll conducted Monday through Wednesday; he led by 16% at the end of September.
  • Indiana: The candidates are tied in an ARG poll conducted Wednesday and Thursday.
  • Minnesota: Obama leads 53% to 38% in a Research 2000 poll conducted Monday through Wednesday.
  • South Dakota: McCain leads 53% to 44% in a Rasmussen poll, a margin that has tightened over the past month.
  • Safe(r) states: Obama leads 57% to 38% in a SUSA poll and 55% to 39% in a Research 2000 poll of Oregon. Obama leads 60% to 36% in a SUSA poll of California (he leads by 19% among the 42% of respondents who have already voted). McCain leads 51% to 44% in an ARG poll of Arkansas.

Meanwhile, in down the ballot polls:

  • Proposition 8 remains very close, though SUSA has the “no” gaining. Down 6% a month ago and 3% two weeks ago, the “no” is now narrowly ahead 50% to 47%. That is primarily due to movement among Democrats and African-Americans. Early voters (42% of the sample) split 50% “no” to 48% “yes.” It could still go either way, but it looks like the “no” has at least stopped the bleeding.
  • The “no” is also gaining in Proposition 4 (abortion), which now trails 46% to 40% and leads by 8% among early voters.
  • Oregon, Senate race: Jeff Merkley leads 49% to 42% in a SUSA poll conducted over the past two days. More than 70% of respondents say they have already voted, and Merkley leads by 10% among those voters. Merkley leads 48% to 42% in a Research 2000 poll conducted Monday through Wednesday; Merkley leads by 40% among those who say they have already cast a ballot.
  • Kentucky, Senate race: Mitch McConnell leads 47% to 44% in a Research 2000 poll conducted Monday through Wednesday.
  • Minnesota, Senate race: Norm Coleman leads 43% to 40% with 15% going to Barkley in a Research 2000 poll conducted Monday through Wednesday.
  • In WY-AL, GOP candidate Cynthia Lummis takes a 49% to 45% lead in a Research 2000 poll. Gary Trauner led by 1% two weeks ago.
  • In NV-03, the candidates are tied at 44% in a Mason Dixon poll; GOP Rep. Porter led by 3% three weeks ago.
  • In NV-02, GOP Rep. Heller leads 50% to 37% in a Mason Dixon poll; he led by the same margin 3% ago.

With the vast majority of Oregon ballots already cast (ballots have to have arrived by Tuesday, meaning that many voters have already mailed them in), it looks like Jeff Merkley will be the next Senator from Oregon as SUSA’s poll (as well as PPP’s yesterday) are now measuring the way the electorate has arleady voted rather than how it is going to vote). The Kentucky and Minnesota Senate races, however, are still toss-ups, particularly the latter in which the Barkley factor is too unpredictable to venture any guess as to who will come out on top. Democrats will likely have to win at least one of these two seats if they want to rise to 60 seats.

At the House level, Research 2000’s poll of WY-AL finds that the race is still within the margin of error but the trendline is worrisome for Democrat Gary Trauner: We knew that most of the undecided were Republican and that Lummis had to get those voters to come home, and this poll suggests that this might be happening. Note that this is a very important race for Democrats: Getting people like Trauner elected would give them a bench from which to potentially contest Senate races in a few cycles.

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"]

Poll watch: Obama dominates VA, Shadegg stays on top, Reichert and Porter tremble

Published
by
Taniel
on October 26, 2008
in AZ-03, AZ-Pres, FL-13, FL-21, GA-Pres, IA-04, IA-Pres, MD-01, MO-Pres, NH-01, NH-Pres, NH-Sen, NV-03, OH-Pres, VA-Pres, WA-08, WI-Pres and WV-Pres
. 7 Comments

How would we keep ourselves entertained without Zogby’s theatrics? Seemingly designed to give partisans of both sides heart failures, Zogby’s tracking poll jumped by 4% in one day - the type of bounciness that a tracking poll’s rolling samples are supposed to avoid. I doubt that any of the other tracking polls have ever found that big a one-day jump. But most comical are Zogby’s attempt to dramatize each of his releases, as the smallest trend is treated as a game-changing shift.

Just three days ago, when Obama suddenly grabbed a 12% lead, Zogby celebrated the coming “Reagan-style landslide.” By this morning, Zogby had moved to a gloomy assessment of Obama’s chances and offered a truly incomprehensible insight: “I have alluded before to this strange, magnetic pull that brings Obama down to 48% or 49%, a danger zone for him.” I am not sure what that means. A more interesting “magnetic pull” is McCain’s inability to break out of the low 40s, including in Zogby’s polls. In seven new national polls, McCain’s total ranges from 40% to 45%. The day McCain manages to inch above 45%, we can think about whether the race is tightening.

At the state level, the situation remains stable, with Obama maintaining his edge in what have now become his “base” states (he jumps to a 15% edge in New Hampshire, leads by double-digit in two surveys of Iowa) and looking good in the large number of red states, any one of which would get him over the top: He leads by 9% in Virginia, by 4% in Ohio while Missouri is locked in dead heat. Even Arizona no longer looks like a lock for McCain, with two (Democratic) polls showing the race within the margin of error, and McCain’s leads in Georgia and West Virginia are far narrower than was expected. The only bright spot of McCain’s day is a Wisconsin poll released by Rasmussen showing the Republican nominee “only” trailing by 7%… Enough said.

  • Obama gains 1% in Hotline (50% to 42%) and Gallup (52% to 43%, though he loses 2% in the traditional model, 50% to 45%). The race remains stable in Rasmussen (52% to 44%) and IBD/TIPP (47% to 43%). McCain gains 1% in Research 2000 (51% to 40%), 2% in ABC/Washington Post (52% to 45%) and 4% (!) in Zogby (49% to 44%). Obama’s leads are thus: 4%, 5%, 7%, 8%, 8%, 9%, 11%.
  • Obama leads 52% to 43% in a PPP poll of Virginia. Obama led by 8% three weeks ago. Obama now leads independents by 9% and enjoys the same level of party loyalty. Obama leads 61% to 24% among new voters.
  • Obama leads 51% to 44% in a Rasmussen poll of Wisconsin. He led by 10% two weeks ago.
  • Obama leads 54% to 39% in a University of New Hampshire poll of New Hampshire. Obama only led by 1% earlier this month. 45% of voters now describe themselves as “firm Obama supporters,” versus 32% of McCain supporters. This poll was conducted from the 18th to the 22nd.
  • Missouri: Two polls find a one-point race, well within the margin of error. McCain is ahead 46% to 45% in a Mason Dixon poll. Obama leads 48% to 47% in a Research 2000 poll (McCain led by 1% in the latter two weeks ago).
  • Arizona: McCain leads 44% to 40% in a poll conducted by Democratic pollsters Myers Research & Grove Insight. Obama leads by 1% among those who have already voted - 34% of the sample. Another poll conducted by Zimmerman & Associates finds McCain leading 45% to 43% only.

Meanwhile, in down-the-ballot polls:

  • Jeanne Shaheen leads 49% to 36% in a UNH poll of the New Hampshire Senate race. She led by 4% in September.
  • In NH-01, Democratic Rep. Shea-Porter grabs a 44% to 39% lead in a UNH poll. She trailed by 3% a month ago. No surprises in NH-02, where Democrat Rep. Hodes dominates.
  • In NV-03, Democratic challenger Titus leads Rep. Porter 47% to 45% in a Research 2000 poll. Among early voters, Titus leads by 11% and Obama leads by 19%.
  • In WA-08, Reichert and Burner are tied at 46% in a Research 2000 poll. Reichert led by 8% two weeks ago. SUSA and two Democratic internal polls recently found the same trendline in Burner’s favor.
  • In KY-02, a DCCC poll has Democratic candidate David Boswell leading 47% to 41%.
  • In IA-04, GOP Rep. Latham leads Democratic candidate Becky Greenwald 47% to 42% in a Research 2000 poll.
  • In FL-21, GOP Rep. Diaz Balart leads Raul Martinez 45% to 44% in a Research 2000 poll. Martinez leads 55% to 42% among early voters.
  • In MD-01, GOP candidate Andy Harris has a narrow 44% to 40% lead in a Research 2000 poll.
  • In FL-13, GOP Rep. Buchanan leads Christine Jennings 45% to 34% in a Research 2000 poll. He led by 12% last month. Among early voters, it is Jennings who has a narrow 3% lead.
  • In AZ-03, GOP Rep. Shadegg leads 50% to 40% in a Research 2000 poll, an improvement over his 9% lead two weeks ago.

A wave of independent House polls bring good news to both parties. Despite the million and a half the DCCC has poured against Shadegg, the Arizona Republican stays at the critical 50% mark; in FL-13, Rep. Buchanan confirms that he is well positioned to survive the blue wave; and in NV-03, Rep. Porter has see worse numbers than this one. That said, Dona Titus remains in a great position to pick-up that latter district, and the one-way spending should only continue to drown Porter.

The news is good for Democrats in NH-01, where Rep. Shea-Porter continues to improve her position, and WA-08, where Darcy Burner has erased the lead Rep. Reichert had opened up over the past month in the second independent poll released this week. Furthermore, Democratic candidates look strong in a large number of second-to-fourth tier contests (FL-21, MD-01, IA-04) and can hope for a few upsets victories on Election Day.

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?

If you like the website...

... Support Campaign Diaries

Archives