The Senate Committee

The Dems are holding their own in the House Committee and National Committee; it's the Senate Committee's are where the Dems are betting hit badly.  It's got to be because of the lack of candidates in some races; Biden in DE. Bayh in IN, North Dakota too.  

What is happening with Evan Bayh's fundraising?  

---

by: TXMichael @ Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 21:06:16 PM CST

Ahhh I'm an idiot!

I was looking at Cash-on-Hand change lol

---

by: TXMichael @ Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 19:26:26 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Am I reading this right?

Both committees outraised their counterpart and the RNC only outraised the DNC by a relatively small amount. All three have more CoH than the Republicans. Where is this wave?

---

by: conspiracy @ Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 21:11:08 PM CST

The GOP has people power!!

---

by: James L. @ Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 21:19:47 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Still need money

I would think they should be doing better. The RNC always outraises the DNC so having the WH has closed the gap. Things are bad but there is still enough contrary evidence to suggest it won't be half as bad a people think.

---

by: conspiracy @ Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 21:28:32 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I agree

I still believe that the Democrats will only lose 15-20 House seats and maybe 3-4 Senate seats (and even there, I think there is room for some surprises on the Senate side).

Politics and Other Random Topics

24, Male, Democrat, NM-01

---

by: DGM @ Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 21:32:25 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I'm thinking 25 and 5-7

Bad but not meltdown.

---

by: conspiracy @ Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 21:44:04 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I don't think 5-7 is ultimately what will happen

We're almost certainly going to lose AR, ND, and DE. We're likely (but not definitely) going to lose NV. That puts us at 4 down (and regardless of the state of the macro, I doubt our prospects will really improve here, maybe except for Nevada and possibly Delaware if Coons can run a spectacular campaign).

It's still possible that we'll lose Indiana, Illinois, Colorado, and Pennsylvania; but on the other hand, I'm actually feeling pretty good about Pennsylvania and Illinois (once the primary is over with, I'm pretty sure Specter's polling will get better against Toomey).

And if the environment gets even a little bit better, we'll have a good shot at taking Missouri, Ohio, and New Hampshire.

I will concede that I'm being probably among the more optimistic on this site, but I don't think I'll be wrong either.

Politics and Other Random Topics

24, Male, Democrat, NM-01

---

by: DGM @ Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 22:34:44 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Im definitely more in the 3-5 range

With it probably being more like 5 than 3.  But I dont think this is necessarily an anti-Democrat cycle but more so an anti-incumbent cycle and we just so happen to hold just about all the swing seats where the partisan advantage can't save our party.  And this translating to open GOP Senate seats I think is going to work in our favor at least in a few open seats.  And OH and MO have two of the worst candidates the GOP could have, they have establishment, washington, typical politician written all over them.

---

by: Andrew @ Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 11:16:06 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Adjusting for reality

New numbers say MO tight as a drum.

http://www.rasmussenreports.co...

---

by: conspiracy @ Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 11:27:46 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Look at 2006

Before you write off the GOP.

---

by: DavidNYC @ Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 22:44:01 PM CST

[ Parent ]

When the out of power

Party committees were killing the majority party committees?

---

by: conspiracy @ Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 22:47:09 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Not even remotely true

At the same point in the cycle.

---

by: DavidNYC @ Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 23:03:38 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Ok just the DCCC

Yes, the RNC had a big advantage and that saved lots of seats narrowly. Dems have that CoH advantage this time.

---

by: conspiracy @ Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 05:48:25 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I may have seemed sarcastic

(The ridiculous phrase "people power" can only inspire that.) But I actually agree with you -- there are many races where all the money in the world won't be able to save certain incumbents (see: Lincoln, Blanche or Reid, Harry). Money's nice, but if you can't put it to use behind a compelling message, well, those big bucks won't get you as far as you'd like.

---

by: James L. @ Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 22:47:46 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Sure

But those are people that might lose in a neutral year. How do they expand the map?

---

by: conspiracy @ Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 22:52:01 PM CST

[ Parent ]

In a year like this

Republicans should be able to get more bang for their buck than Democrats. You expand the map by recruiting solid candidates who can raise respectable money.

I don't care to predict what the end result will be, but I'm expecting the GOP to inflict some serious damage, (supposed) fundraising woes notwithstanding.

---

by: James L. @ Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 22:58:43 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Isn't everybody?

And how many of their solid recruits are actually raising respectable money? I'd say quite a few are and quite a few are not.

---

by: conspiracy @ Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 05:50:42 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Disgusting

No reason for us to be getting outraised when we have such large majorities and the WH.

29/D/Male/NY-01

---

by: Tekzilla @ Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 21:52:16 PM CST

Oh my

Nothing further.

---

by: conspiracy @ Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 21:54:11 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Sorry

But Tek's not wrong. We should be kicking their asses on the money front, not losing ground.

---

by: DavidNYC @ Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 22:35:41 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Why?

I think it is completely unrealistic to expect more than this. The Dems were doing far, far better in 2006.

---

by: conspiracy @ Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 22:43:34 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Were we?

CoH, 12/31/2005:

RNC: 34.0m
NRSC: 10.5m
NRCC: 19.6m

Tot: 64.1m

DNC: 5.9m
DSCC: 22.4m
DCCC: 15.7m

Tot: 44m

The GOP is closer to our total CoH now than we were to theirs back then. Granted, we had a higher percentage of theirs than they do of ours. But we've banked less money this cycle despite having enormous majorities in the House and Senate and the guy in the White House than we did in 2005, the first year of Bush's second term.

If I told you in January 2006 that this state of affairs would come to pass, I doubt you'd believe me. The fact that we can't do far better than our own 2005 numbers is very troubling to me.

---

by: DavidNYC @ Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 22:58:28 PM CST

[ Parent ]

The Republicans also only have $24M CoH now

In absolute terms, you're right, but relative to standings, we actually have a larger relative CoH advantage over the Republicans than they had over us at this point in time before (we had 68% of the Republicans CoH, the Republicans have 58%)

It's also worth mentioning that the vast majority of their cash came from the RNC that year (and the dismal performance of the DNC dragged us down pretty hard). The Republicans are still having trouble fundraising effectively (except on the Senate side, which I'm willing to concede they've been doing a pretty good job) and it's a sign that the Democrats might not be in the hot water everyone assumes they're in.

Politics and Other Random Topics

24, Male, Democrat, NM-01

---

by: DGM @ Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 23:12:33 PM CST

[ Parent ]

What were the relative numbers

During the Clinton presidency? Memory serves that the GOP always had an advantage.

---

by: conspiracy @ Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 05:52:40 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I'm sure

That you can look them up.

---

by: DavidNYC @ Sun Mar 14, 2010 at 23:21:37 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Are you kidding?

Comparing 2009 to 2005 is a joke!

First, did you hear the economy collapsed?! Presidents only fund raise with the mega millionaire Wall Street/Tech types. Right now, those people have no money. Also, it would look bad for Obama to go to NYC and raise $12 million from the bankers who helped this economy collapsed.

Ignoring those 2 factoids what about the fact that Republicans are in bed with corporate interest and should raise more money since they are selling their sould. A company had more incentive in 2005 to give money to the party in power then they do today. No big fortune 500 company will give money to an administration that has no interest in deregulating their field. Under Bush, big oil, pharma, and ag companies could reap benefits from keeping Republicans in office.

Comparing the 2 cycles is ridiculous!  

---

by: kman23 @ Sat Mar 13, 2010 at 15:09:06 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Sorry

But the banksters have as much money as ever. We bailed them out, remember? Wall Street has been doing extremely well over the last year. I agree it would be unseemly for Obama to rake in bankster cash so overtly, but the money is there.

---

by: DavidNYC @ Sun Mar 14, 2010 at 23:20:50 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I disagree

The majority of money raised in NYC comes from Wall Street middlemen. In 2004 they were making millions, today many are unemployed. I don't care if the big firms are making money, the average worker isn't close to where they were and they're afraid the economy might collapse again.

I just think blindly comparing the two years is naive.  

---

by: kman23 @ Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 14:19:16 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

If I were an RNC contributor I would be complaining

what the hell is with their high burn rate? The D's spent loads of money in MA so I get why they had a smaller changes in CoH, but what is the RNC spending money on? Michael Steele needs to shut up about fiscal responsibility until he nets significantly more than $1 million in a month.

Is there any chance Steele is really a Dem Manchurian candidate?

---

by: Jfindl1 @ Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 22:31:13 PM CST

a HEIST reference? woot. NT

---

by: Adam B. @ Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 22:32:10 PM CST

Grin

Nice catch! Then you'll also probably like this oldie but goodie.

---

by: DavidNYC @ Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 22:39:43 PM CST

[ Parent ]

DSCC's January spending

How much did they spend once alarm bells went off in Massachusetts? From what I understand, the NRSC didn't do much in that race apart from $250k in seed money in December.

---

by: InRepublican @ Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 00:05:59 AM CST

They spend $2m+ more

So the bulk of that is probably MA. You guys really had a win-win-win there.

---

by: conspiracy @ Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 05:53:52 AM CST

[ Parent ]

what bothers me more

is that all the cash they dumped in MA had zero effect. Makes me worried that they'll blow money in other states on ineffective ads.

---

by: desmoinesdem @ Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 09:37:10 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Coakley actually won late deciders

So they made a difference. That race was lost in December.

---

by: conspiracy @ Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 11:17:10 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Blowing money

Yeah, they'd do something stupid like try to save Blanche Lincoln.

That said, there are some places where a dollop of cash could prove very effective. Specifically: Delaware & New Hampshire spring to mind. Or maybe Iowa. I think showing a bunch of clips of Grassley being a cranky old jerk could weaken him more than you might think.  

The trick is finding all the cheap places to advertise and where strong but underfunded candidates are running.  

29, D, CA-27, 2nd class citizen

---

by: arealmlc @ Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 14:48:17 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I think in the end

The NRCC is going to be blamed for costing their side a shot at the house majority.  Their fundraising efforts have been downright pathetic this entire cycle.  Down 4-1 to the DCCC in cash on hand?  Ouch.

23, Male, Democrat, OH-13

---

by: StephenCLE @ Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 06:25:48 AM CST

corporations can ride to the rescue

Corporations have plenty of money to spend in 20-40 House districts, making up for the NRCC's failings.

---

by: desmoinesdem @ Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 09:38:04 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Yeah maybe

but how willing are private companies to spend on campaigns in an economy like this?  

23, Male, Democrat, OH-13

---

by: StephenCLE @ Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 10:13:22 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Not to mention

Not all corporations lean Republican and their are other entities that certainly lean Democratic that are free to get involved.

---

by: conspiracy @ Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 11:18:40 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Yeah, what if Microsoft

What if Microsoft suddenly decided they didn't like Dave Reichert anymore because he's homophobic and not tech-friendly enough? And that Suzan DelBene would be very amenable to their interests (as she probably would be, actually).

$10 million is a rounding error for them, but way more than enough to bury Reichert under a blizzard of negative ads.

Or maybe David Geffen decides he really hates people in the closet and gets a bunch of media companies together to destroy David Dreier.

It's still a crappy decision by the Roberts court, but it can cut both ways.

29, D, CA-27, 2nd class citizen

---

by: arealmlc @ Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 15:00:12 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I'm A Bit Surprised

I would have thought that with an energized conservative base and a frustrated Democratic party that the numbers would have favored Republicans substantially more than they have recently. While money often follows power, many groups do better in opposition, especially when the opposition senses the opportunity for major gains.

---

by: dsimon @ Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 16:04:50 PM CST

Same Here

I was expected the Dems to be out raised by a substantial margin given the energized conservatives and the "independent" tea party.

---

by: TXMichael @ Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 19:30:41 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Incomplete

This is an incomplete look so before people start panicking stop!

If Democratic candidates are raising more then Republicans in senate races the lack of funds raised by the DSCC is less important. Overall, in competitive races I have no idea who is raising more money but I assume the amount raised by the DCCC, DSCC and DNC is minimal compared to the amount raised by all the Democratic candidates.

On a side note, why is the DGA not included in this. Winning governor races right now has to be key with redistricting right around the corner.

---

by: kman23 @ Sat Mar 13, 2010 at 15:13:35 PM CST