Google Ads


Site Stats

New and Improved House I.E. Analysis

by: spiderdem

Sun Oct 17, 2010 at 12:43 PM EDT


This is the third in my five-week series focusing on House independent expenditures and what they tell us about the races.  This one should be much better than the previous ones because I have now taken into account not just whether the party committees are spending in a particular district, but how much and for how long.  The Republicans have relatively few seats in the bag compared to the apocalyptic conventional wisdom that this is the mother of all wave elections.  I would generously give them 17 - all of the ones listed in the first two categories below.  At the same time, the Republicans have genuinely put a lot of seats in play.  One or both parties has made I.E.'s in 73 districts - 68 Democratic and 5 Republican.  That is the problem for the Democrats - a broad playing field that is modestly expanding week by week.  The problem for the Republicans though, which will probably keep them from running up huge numbers, is that they are bogged down in pitch battles over seats that were seen as goners according to the early conventional wisdom (MD-01, MS-01, NM-02, and VA-05 to name a few).  Republicans are spending hundreds of thousands weekly on these types of districts.  The fact that these deeply endangered Democratic incumbents have refused to say die two weeks out is good news for the Democrats, as it focuses resources on those races instead of broadening the playing field even further.  All in all, I expect Republicans to take the House with a net gain of 40-55 seats.  I would love to be pleasantly surprised, but I don't expect to be.  In any event, here is your weekly I.E. analysis:

Goners (9D, 2R)

AR-02 - Nothing from either side.
DE-AL - Nothing from either side.
IL-11 - DCCC has done nothing.  NRCC has been spending about $30K per week.
IN-08 - DCCC has done nothing.  NRCC had been spending but stopped this week.
KS-03 - Nothing from either side.
LA-02 - Nothing from either side.
LA-03 - Nothing from either side.
NY-29 - Nothing from either side.
OH-01 - One small, token ad buy from the DCCC.  Nothing from the NRCC.
OH-15 - Same shit, different district.
TN-06 - Nothing from either side.

"I'm not quite dead yet" (10D, 0R)

CO-04 - DCCC has not spent a dime here, yet the NRCC spent over $400K this week.
FL-02 - Exactly the same story as CO-04.  
FL-08 - DCCC has done nothing, and the NRCC spent over $200K this week.  Actually surprised it was not more given Grayson's cash advantage.  Webster may be in good shape.
FL-24 - Exactly the same story as FL-08.
NH-01 - Still nothing from the DCCC, but the NRCC is spending over $300K per week.
PA-03 - Both parties have made persistent, small ad buys here, although the DCCC's have declined.  Does not look good for Dahlkemper.
PA-11 - The DCCC seems to be waving the white flag here, reducing its ad buy from over $100K to $34K this week.  But the NRCC is still spending over $100K per week here.
TN-08 - Herron has only a faint pulse.  DCCC has not spent a dime here, but the NRCC still spent over $100K this week, although it reduced its buy.
TX-17 - The DCCC has not spent anything here either.  The NRCC has significantly increased its ad buys for the past two weeks, but they are still slightly under $100K.
WI-08 - The DCCC spent $45K here this week, while the NRCC spent just over $100K.  Looks uphill for Kagen.

Battlegrounds (31D, 1R)

AL-02 - Both parties pumped over $200K into this district this week.  Dueling internal polls.
AR-01 - DCCC just dumped over $400K into this race this week, while the NRCC spent over $250K.  Sorry Mark Penn, but this is a low single digit race and not a 12-pointer.
AZ-01 - Both parties spent over $200K each in this district this week.  Rumors of Kirkpatrick's demise may be exaggerated.
AZ-05 - DCCC spent about $250K in this race this week, while the NRCC went for the jugular with about $375K.  Dueling internal polls.
CO-03 - DCCC spent $350K here this week, while the NRCC spent $275K.  NRCC poll showed a tie.
FL-22 - Nothing from either side, but huge fundraising from both candidates.  Dueling internal polls.
HI-01 - DCCC spent over $160K here this week, while the NRCC spent $120K in its first week of spending to date.  Polls consistently show a very tight race.
IL-17 - DCCC spent over $300K here this week, while the NRCC spent $150K.  This one is the real deal.  Hare should win it if he can lift Dem turnout just a little.
IN-09 - DCCC spent about $275K here this week, while the NRCC spent $215K.  Classic battleground.  No polling for a while.
MA-10 - NRCC must like what they see here, busting out over $300K this week.  DCCC spent about $150K.  Still have not seen a poll of this race.
MD-01 - Both parties spent in the mid $300's here this week.  Kratovil is doing an amazing job of hanging in there.
MI-01 - DCCC spent about $275K here this week, while the NRCC spent just over $200K.  Toss-up race, as several recent polls have shown.
MI-07 - Both parties spent just over $200K here this week.  Another pure toss-up.
MO-04 - DCCC spent $225K here this week, while the NRCC spent $280K.  Skelton seems to be in a real fight, but there is a dearth of recent polling.
MS-01 - DCCC spent about $215K here this week, while the NRCC spent nearly $300K(!).  Like Kratovil, Childers is doing a great job of pulling a Houdini act so far.
ND-AL - Look who's back from the dead.  Pomeroy has both parties spending $200K plus this week after weeks of silence from the DCCC.
NM-02 - Both parties spent just under $200K here this week.  Like Kratovil, Teague is a red-district freshman with unusual staying power.
NV-03 - One of the hottest districts in the country.  Both parties' expenditures approached $400K this week.  Pure toss-up.
NY-19 - Neither party has deigned to spend in the NYC media market on this one.  Public polls paint a pretty clear picture of a toss-up race.
OH-16 - Huge battleground.  DCCC spent $300K this week, while the NRCC spent over $400K.  Like Kratovil and Teague, impressive staying power for Boccieri in red district.
OH-18 - Republicans see blood in the water here, spending well over $500K here this week.  DCCC spent about $370K.  SEIU pitching in for Team Red does not help Space.
OR-05 - Both parties spent well over $200K here this week.  Sleeper battleground seat.  NRCC poll showed a virtual tie.
PA-10 - DCCC spent $140K here this week, while the NRCC spent just over $200K.  Amazing that a guy like Marino can even be in a race like this, but that's the kind of year it is.
PA-12 - Both parties spent in the mid-to-high $200K range here this week.  Republicans only started spending here this week.  They may see an opening in spite of the May result.
SC-05 - DCCC spent $170K here this week, while the NRCC spent $200K.  Spratt is in a serious fight, but no polling for a while.
TN-04 -DCCC has only spent about $100K, but the NRCC spent a whopping $310K here this week.  DeJarlais internal shows a 5 point lead.
TX-23 - Both parties spent in the mid-$200K range this week.  This one should be very close.  Have not seen any polling for a while.
VA-02 - Both parties spent in the mid-$100K range this week.  Nye has done a good job of hanging around in this one.
VA-05 - The DCCC is still spending here, although its latest ad buy was under $100K.  The NRCC spent about $185K this week.  Periello is still very much alive, but behind.
WA-03 - DCCC spent nearly $280K this week here, while the NRCC spent over $300K.  No, Survey USA, this is not a double digit race.
WI-07 - DCCC spent $175K here this week, while the NRCC spent about $155K.  This one is probably competitive, although I suspect Duffy is ahead by single digits.
WV-01 - DCCC spent $250K here this week, while the NRCC spent nearly $200K.  Manchin's recent surge could help Olivieri.

Head Scratchers (6D, 1R)

CA-11 - Both parties spent about $50K here this week.  I suspect McNerney is up, but as usual a Survey USA poll creates confusion.  
IL-10 - DCCC spent $125K here this week, while the NRCC spent $55K.  Mirror image partisan polls with double digit leads for either candidate have my head spinning.
NH-02 - DCCC spent a paltry $35K here last week, while the NRCC spent $128K.  My sense has been that Bass is ahead, but that screwy UNH poll has me doubting myself.
NY-23 - Doheny internal shows a double digit race in his favor.  Siena shows a double digit race in Owens's favor.  The NRCC has spent nothing.  The DCCC spent $160K this week.  Huh?
PA-07 - Polls have this one close, but the DCCC has not spent a dime.  The NRCC has made small, sub-$50K ad buys.
PA-08 - Same shit, different district.  Cannot figure these two districts out.
SD-AL - DCCC has not spent here in spite of Noem's enormous 3Q haul.  DCCC internal showed a double digit SHS lead, while Rasmussen showed a 3-point Noem lead.

Lean Retention (21D, 1R)

AZ-07 - DCCC spent about $60K here this week, which is disconcerting.  Until the NRCC starts spending, I will assume it is precautionary.
CA-20 - DCCC spent about $40K here this week.  I view it the same way as AZ-07.
FL-25 - DCCC spent $75K on advertising on 10/5 and cut that to $18K on 10/12.  Not a good sign for Garcia.
GA-02 - DCCC spent $150K here this week, while the NRCC spent $100K.  Does not seem like an all hands on deck effort for the Republicans yet.
GA-08 - DCCC is spending virtually nothing here, while the NRCC spent about $85K this week.  I suspect Marshall is ahead.  Otherwise, both parties would be investing more.    
IA-02 - DCCC spent over $90K here this week, which is disconcerting.  But the NRCC has not taken an interest yet, so I will wait and see.
IA-03 - DCCC spent nearly $130K here this week, but the NRCC has never engaged.
IL-14 - DCCC spent $90K here this week, while the NRCC spent just over $50K.  DCCC internal showed a double digit Foster lead.
IN-02 - DCCC spent $190K here this week, while the NRCC spent $80K.  Like GA-02, seems like a tepid level of investment from the Republicans.
KY-06 - Both parties spent about $100K here this week.  Does not seem like an inspired effort from the Republicans.
MN-01 - NRCC invested about $180K here this week after targeting the race last week, but the Dems have not yet felt the need to reciprocate.  
MS-04 - NRCC invested $176K here this week, but nothing from the Dems yet.  This one could be real trouble.  Taylor is sub-Coakley in the hubris department here.
NC-07 - NRCC has made modest, $40K weekly ad buys here.  The DCCC finally started spending this week ($75K).  Seems like McIntyre is in decent shape.
NC-08 - DCCC has invested over $200K per week here, but that is probably just to counteract Kissell's sorry fundraising.  Nothing from the NRCC yet.
NJ-03 - DCCC has done nothing here.  Modest, sub-$30K, weekly buys from the NRCC.  Have to believe that Adler is up here.
NM-01 - DCCC spent $115K here this week, while the NRCC spent over $160K.  Could be trouble, but I will wait to see if the DCCC ups the ante next week.
NY-20 - DCCC spent $110K here this week, while the NRCC spent $172K.  Like NM-01, I will wait to see if the DCCC feels the need to pick up the pace.
NY-24 - DCCC spent nearly $200K here this week, but the NRCC only spent about $70K.  Not an inspiring effort from the NRCC here.  Arcuri is probably up.
OH-06 - DCCC spent $65K here this week, while the NRCC spent just over $100K.  Both parties seem to be just feeling out this race at this point.
OH-13 - DCCC has reduced its ad buy from $220K on 9/21 to about $65K this week.  Dems have to be feeling good about this one.
VA-09 - The DCCC has not spent here, and polls have consistently given Boucher double digit leads.  Nevertheless, the NRCC upped its ad buy to $180K this week.
VA-11 - The DCCC has been spending token amounts of money primarily on mailers.  Nothing from the NRCC.

As to all of the other races where there have been no I.E.'s on either side, including AZ-08, CA-47, CO-07, CT-04, CT-05, ID-01, KY-03, MI-09, NY-01, NY-13, PA-04, and WA-02, I am expecting retention at this point.  I'm sure there will be some surprises, but I'm not going to predict them here.  I expect the overwhelming majority of the pickups to come from races targeted by one or both party committees.
spiderdem :: New and Improved House I.E. Analysis
Tags: , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

New and Improved House I.E. Analysis | 60 comments
This is excellent, thanks
Here's the concern: NY-19 is showing no signs of committee life, even though reliable polling from two sources suggests a tight race with the Dem incumbent behind. So too PA-08.

If we can figure out why the committees aren't playing in these districts, and whether there are any others like it, we might be able to get a better picture. IMO, what's reflected is that these are suburban seats outside of Philly and New York, and therefore expensive. However, it's hard to imagine holding the House if we can't retain seats like these.  

Pretty sure you're right.
Dems are not spending on those races because they're expensive, big city media markets and they can get more bang for the buck elsewhere.  

I don't really expect us to retain either of those seats, and particularly not PA-08, so I share your concern.  Nor do I expect us to keep the House.  What I don't do, though, is say that losing X seat means we lose the House (not that you did that here).  I could easily see Dems losing PA-08 and winning AR-01 or MI-01, or any number of other counterintuitive combinations like that.

34, WM, Democrat, FL-11

[ Parent ]
Thinking ahead
holding the House with a "counterintuitive combination" might be worse than losing it outright. Can you imagine trying to govern when your 219th vote is Bobby Bright?  
[ Parent ]
If it were that close
I would almost rather Republican control, out of confidence that they will embarrass themselves if they actually have to govern (and that Obama would veto anything really damaging they might try).  

Dems govern like they're in the minority now with a near 40 seat majority.  I can't even imagine the scenario you suggest.

34, WM, Democrat, FL-11

[ Parent ]
And yet that scenario
looks something like what the DCCC is shooting for, given their IEs. . .

The best outcomes are

1. A comfortable Dems majority (Say 225+ seats),

2. A very narrow Republican majority,

3. A narrow Dem Majority.

(2) is pain now, and (3) is pain now and later. Everything after that is about equally bad.  

[ Parent ]
It's a solid analysis
But I have to say, without a side-by-side with each candidates' CoH and expenditures, it doesn't tell the full story.

20, center-left independent, Auckland Central resident, MD-05 voter, OR-01 native
It's one of the better indicators though.
In 2006, the DCCC spent money in 27/30 of the seats that flipped D->R.  Seeing where the NRCC is spending is an important indicator of where they think they can win.  But if there's a 50 seat wave, it's very possible that 4 or 5 of the wins could be surprises.  The surprises in 2006 were IA-02, NH-01, and NY-19.

Here's a good link if you want to see how IE's played out by race in 2006:

http://www.fec.gov/press/press...

COH is something worth taking into account, but this year a more important thing to look at might be where American Crossroads is dropping cash bombs, since they're planning on spending as much on house races as the NRCC is, and they seem to be taking on the more expensive markets so NRCC doesn't have to.

[ Parent ]
Good round-up.
As you may know I check IE's a couple times a day.  I actually missed IA-02.  I assume that is to counteract the buttload of money that AFF is dropping in the district.  I think your classification of races is accurate.

For the record I think CA-11 lean D, IL-10 is lean D.  NH-02 it's worth noting that Kuster is outraising and outspending Bass by far.  Think it's lean D.  SD-01 I have no idea.  Probably toss-up.  NY-23 is a confusing one, but until NRCC spends here I'm assuming lean D.  PA-07 and PA-08 I think the dems are counting on Union spending and GOTV.  Unions have spent over a million in PA-08.  Outside Republican groups have spent over a million against Lentz in PA-07.  I think they're toss-ups.

Exactly
These are important cash dynamics that a simple I.E. rundown misses. And they could be the difference between a Republican House or a Democratic House.

20, center-left independent, Auckland Central resident, MD-05 voter, OR-01 native
[ Parent ]
In fairness
the fact that I'm not laying out candidate cash dynamics here does not mean I don't understand or appreciate them.  Any conclusions drawn in the diary were made with a thorough, working understanding of the candidate cash dynamics, and a belief that most readers here also have such an understanding.  It's just not what this diary is about.

34, WM, Democrat, FL-11
[ Parent ]
Absolutely
And I appreciate your time and effort in putting the list together, and I think it's very illustrative of certain trends and may well end up being highly predictive of what happens on Election Day.

20, center-left independent, Auckland Central resident, MD-05 voter, OR-01 native
[ Parent ]
IEs from outside groups will make a huge difference too
I would be interesting to see the outside group IEs on a district by district basis but that's way more work than one person can do especially since it changes so much on a daily basis.

21, Progressive Democrat, MN-08 (home), MN-05 (college)
[ Parent ]
Amen to that!
With unlimited time I would do that, but just this part took a lot of work...

34, WM, Democrat, FL-11
[ Parent ]
Great job on this though!
Maybe some group will work on that after the election.

21, Progressive Democrat, MN-08 (home), MN-05 (college)
[ Parent ]
You can see a summary of them here
http://www.opensecrets.org/rac...

it tells you total spent in the last week, and total this cycle, by group.

for example, NC-07.

http://www.opensecrets.org/rac...

you can see that NRCC isn't spending here, DCCC has in last week, and are nearing a million spent to defend here.  NEA is also supporting Kissell.  Americans for Job Security spent here against Kissell earlier this cycle.

[ Parent ]
IA-02
NRCC not engaged, but Mariannette Miller-Meeks has loaned her campaign more than half a million dollars, including about $370K in the third quarter. She has the money to run ads.
IA-03
Unlike MMM in IA-02, Zaun doesn't have a lot of money and was able to afford only small ad buys to close out the campaign.
Good news
that the DCCC has not felt the need to engage in IA-01 given all the third party money going in there.

All in all, seems like there's a good chance we'll hold all three Iowa seats, which I never would have thought a month or two ago.

34, WM, Democrat, FL-11

[ Parent ]
afraid to get too confident
but if Culver can cut Branstad's margin to 10 points or less, I think we are well-positioned to hold all three seats.

I couldn't find the DCCC disclosure on the IA-02 spending. Was that for direct mail or advertising?  

[ Parent ]
Advertising.


34, WM, Democrat, FL-11
[ Parent ]
saw it on the DCCC site
I don't like the ad. It highlights a really dumb tax reform plan Miller-Meeks supports, but does so in a misleading way.  
[ Parent ]
Phenomenal job, spiderdem. You do a VERY smart job following the money. (nm)
nm

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10
Thanks
I really appreciate positive feedback from the community on this series, as I have gotten anything but positive feedback from my wife for spending so much time on it.  You guys may be all I have left soon!

34, WM, Democrat, FL-11
[ Parent ]
TELL ME ABOUT IT!!!
My wife is puzzled and frustrated how much time I spend on SSP.  I sit right next to her reading and typing away as she watches reality TV in the form of the Real Housewives series and the Kardashians and so much else.  Shows like that don't inspire me to get off the computer and watch TV with her.  And I need my private time for my own favorite activities after putting the kids to bed, so there's a constant tension between that and figuring out what we can do together on worknights.

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10
[ Parent ]
joke around our house
is that gay marriage poses no threat to our marriage, but desmoinesdem's blogging is another story!
[ Parent ]
This is a great thread
And on that note, I'm going to post part of a comment I made in another thread, because it pertains so well to the topic here:

Why is the NRCC still spending so much money in some districts, like CO-04? In some cases, it's almost as much as $1 million per week, or maybe that's for a longer period of time like a month. Not all media markets are cheap, but not all of them are expensive like the New York metro area, either. You'd think that if the districts were really locks at this point--and some of them probably are, considering they are bound to get at least 20 seats--they'd spend the money elsewhere. Even with the overwhelming outside advantage that the Republicans have, money isn't limitless. Why wouldn't they be shifting money to AZ-07, for instance, if they felt CO-04 was so likely? There doesn't need to be any collusion between official committees and outside groups to track what group is spending where, so it kind of makes sense to consider them as more or less aware of what each is doing.

Basically, my gut tells me that things aren't nearly as bad as some say they are if they are spending such considerable sums of money on districts like CO-04 at this point in the game. I'd be interested to hear what others think on this note.

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

Make no mistake about it.
They are spending $400,000 per week against Markey because they are concerned that, if they didn't, she could win.  The same can be said for a dozen other seats generally seen as goners.  The GOP getting bogged down in those seats keeps them from going after an even broader array of seats.  It's not a reason to think the Republicans aren't going to take the House, but it's a reason to think they are not going to take, say 93 seats.

34, WM, Democrat, FL-11
[ Parent ]
Well, yes.
I get that if they simply didn't contest these seats at all, they wouldn't naturally fall to the Democrats. But some candidates are much more likely to fall then others, and while I won't claim to be an expert on any of this, all indications are that CO-04 would be among the first to go if the Republicans take some seats. Say what you will about the limitations of Nate Silver's models, but it suggests that Markey's district has an 86-percent chance of going to the Republicans. It says that Nye and Periello's districts in Virginia have roughly an 80-percent and a 91-percent chance of going to the Republicans. Yet, in all three, the Republicans are still spending considerable sums of money. (And if the districts are pretty cheap to advertise in, it is, relatively speaking, even more.)

I wouldn't expect the Republicans to drop down to, say, 25-percent of what it was when it was very high, but it just seems odd that they are still spending so much when they should have these in the bag. Perhaps history is against me and it's just normal, even this late in the game under similar circumstances, for parties to be acting like the Republicans are now. But something tells me that, beyond not taking any chances, it's an unspoken acknowledgment that things aren't going to be that bad for the Democrats, or rather that good for the Republicans.

What other way is there to look at it?

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

[ Parent ]
It's all relative.
You're right that the phenomenon of Republicans still having to spend big bucks in uber red districts is good for the Democrats.  But it could mean losing 30 seats instead of 40 or it could mean losing 50 seats instead of 60.  I'm seeing 40-55 seats lost right now from looking at all of the available data.  I definitely don't think it's going to be substantially worse than that given that the Republicans are still in dogfights for MD-01 and the like.

It's really hard to knock off a well-funded incumbent.  It takes $$$ and constant pressure.  And the Democrats have a lot of well-funded incumbents all over the country.  Only a few, like Driehaus and Kilroy, have been given the knockout punch.  The Dem incumbents are more capable of putting up a fight than the media is giving them credit for.  The Republican majority is not in the bag.

34, WM, Democrat, FL-11

[ Parent ]
Isn't the NRCC on track to run out of money before the DCCC
If the NRCC has spent $31M so far and started with less than the DCCC, and DCCC has only spent $22M so far.

CQ politics says "The DCCC had $41.6 million on hand as of Sept. 30, while the NRCC had $19 million on hand."  The NRCC is going to be massively outspent in the homestretch, and I think they will be far outmatched on GOTV as well, so they have to lock away races sooner rather than later, I think.  Of course, they do have American Crossroads coming in to carpetbomb districts in the homestretch.

That the NRCC is still spending huge amounts in CO-04, OH-16, and FL-24 is a good sign.  I still think the chance of GOP takeover is only about 50/50, but partly because I think there are some systematic problems with polling this cycle.

[ Parent ]
Exactly.
When you figure that their baseline for taking over the House is between 39-43 (or maybe a little higher, depending on how many seats we flip), and they are, almost without much effort, going to take 75 percent of them off the bat, but that they are still spending huge sums in those districts, it's almost hard not to be positive for the Democrats. Of course, if this is just natural for parties to do in these circumstances, that's one thing, but nobody seems to be making that argument. In fact, the argument seems to be that they should be scaling back in such districts and trying to pummel Democrats in districts like AZ-07, with increased spending, but that's only happening to a small extent.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?
[ Parent ]
See my comment below.
The flaw in your reasoning is that well-funded incumbents are going to fall like dominos if the Republicans divert resources to new pickup opportunities.  They won't.  They will only win these districts through relentless money and effort.  Trust me, they are scaling back where they can, but only when they have built an insurmountable lead.

34, WM, Democrat, FL-11
[ Parent ]
But that's just it:
in some sense, they will fall like dominoes. I don't like to attribute everything to fate, but there's some theory that says there's almost nothing some incumbents can do in a wave election. I'm not sure I buy into that entirely, but it's certainly not ridiculous enough to dismiss offhand. It sounds like you disagree, which makes sense, but you lend any sort of credence to that idea, you'd assmume that someone like Markey (not to harp on her, by the way, but her district does seem to work as an example for a lot of things) would be in the first group to go. And yet, despite the natural wave, they are still pounding away, even when the other side has almost given up, at least outside the district. Still going with the theory I described above, it makes one think that the gains are limited, because the fight is still over those first in line, not those down the line.


"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?
[ Parent ]
Totally agree with this part.
Still going with the theory I described above, it makes one think that the gains are limited, because the fight is still over those first in line, not those down the line.

But again, limited from what?  Just hard to figure out with so few seats in hand and so many battleground "toss-up" races.

34, WM, Democrat, FL-11

[ Parent ]
Each district
has past voting behavior to go on, and from that, you can establish an average. Most people seem to use the presidential races as a baseline, although you could, I would think, use past congressional races as well. Every district leans one way or another, but the swing ones do so to an extent that is easy for one side to overcome, especially in a wave election. Roughly speaking, the generic ballot gives you an idea of how many seats might be up for grabs, and the past performance of each district gives you an indication of which ones are likely to go first. There are obviously a lot of variables besides this, such as money, that can have an influence, but it's a pretty decent way of seeing which ones might go first.

I realize there limitations with his modeling, and so does he, but Nate Silver's work seems like a decent place to start.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

[ Parent ]
Reps. Gerlach, Kirk, Reichert et al
Disagree.
[ Parent ]
It helps
to look at districts on both ends reverting back to their current average political leanings. We are currently overrepresented in swing districts--thus the huge margin in the House--and the Republicans are usually underrepresented. The races you cited above are exceptions to this rule.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?
[ Parent ]
But that's just it.
They start off with a huge number of pickups.

Figure that that with three big trends working against them, not all of them distinct--the economy, the enthusiasm on the part of the Republicans, and the general habit of the party in control of the White House losing seats during a midterm election--the Democrats are almost bound, barring Obama curing cancer between now and election day, to lose 25-30 seats. There are a lot of districts that fall into that group. Like I said above, two of those that I mentioned above--CO-04 and VA-02--are in that category, according to Nate Silver. In other words, assuming something normal and relatively great happens for Democrats where they only lose 25-30 seats, those districts will almost certainly flip. And yet, the Republicans are still spending lots of money (both relative to the country as a whole but perhaps even more to the district) on them. No, they are, smartly, not taking any chances, but why not refuse to take chances with, say, $150-200,000 in CO-04 versus what they are spending now and divert the rest of the money to NJ-03 or CT-05, both of which are a lot less likely to be taken over, or maybe NY-24 or FL-22, which are in the middle category? It becomes even more puzzling when the DSCC isn't spending much, if anything, there. Sure, outside groups are spending in some districts when the formal committees are not, but that's usually for both sides.

Maybe it's too late to make a difference, but if they were going to ride the sort of wave that some are predicting, I have to think they'd be doing just that. They are trying to expand the playing field, to some extent, but with such a big baseline of pick ups, you'd think they'd be doing it even more. The fact that they aren't leads me, in my more positive moments, to think it's going to be a lot better for Democrats than some are predicting.



"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

[ Parent ]
It's because seats don't usually just organically flip,
especially when there is a well-funded incumbent.  The NRCC is spending $400K per week on CO-04 because that's what the NRCC believes it has to do to win there.  Markey has a $1MM fundraising advantage over Gardner, and is probably not THAT far behind.  The NRCC believes that if it spent less on her district, she would or at least could win.  So if they pull a lot of money out of her district, it's not necessarily going to flip just because of a wave.  It takes relentless money and effort.

Again, I'm with you that this is good for the Democrats.  We just don't know what the baseline is.

Your comment about CT-05 and NJ-03 brings up an unrelated point.  Sometimes the party committees don't spend much in a district just because it's expensive to buy media there.  They feel like they can get a lot more bang for the buck going after less expensive districts.  Neither party has spent much in New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, San Francisco, Philadelphia, or any of the other uber expensive places.  That may change as we get closer to the finish line.

34, WM, Democrat, FL-11

[ Parent ]
But even with the funding advantage,
it is, in some sense, almost as if the district will magically flip. It is, in a sense, as if incumbents are beholden to national circumstances. Some districts are like that, and when the Democrats made successive gains in two huge elections for then, they entered into a lot of territory that wasn't natural for them. That's obviously good, but it makes defending the seat hard. Certain factors are distinct to each district, yes, but there are some, despite their differences, that will almost certainly fall depending on how big the baseline is. You have to assume that each side is going to fight hard no matter what, but then, the DCCC has scaled back dramatically if not pulled out entirely and the NRCC is still spending, and spending a lot. It's basically like one side stopped firing but the other side is still firing when their bullets aren't, in theory, going to have an effect, and could be put to better use elsewhere.

We could go back and forth on this, and at the risk of repeating myself more than I already have, I'll say it's at least good that we can agree that it's good for the Democrats.

And yes, you are right that the examples I used in the last instance were poor. But substitute in some district in Ohio or Missouri, and it still stands.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

[ Parent ]
I have fixated on this topic
because I consider party committees to be among the most rational actors in this process.

Some seats will "magically flip."  Both sides, for example, seem to believe that IL-11, OH-01, and OH-15, among others, will flip without much intervention.  But if a party committee is spending a lot in a district, I take it as a given that there's a good reason for it (or at least that that party committee thinks so).

34, WM, Democrat, FL-11

[ Parent ]
Re: CO-04,
from a Republican perspective, they could be trying to insure that Markey doesn't benefit from any confusion/frustration with the gubernatorial choices on the R side.
[ Parent ]
I believe Gardner is from the Eastern plains
so there is a need to spend in the expensive Denver market for him.  I'm thinking that's part of the reason for all the spending here.

34, WM, Democrat, FL-11
[ Parent ]
Other IE v congressional committee motives
Another way of looking at things:

I understand the premise of the diary: the spending decisions o the party committees reflect the playing field closely enough to be quite useful, even if not perfectly.  That said, I think third party exenditures on the right are probably uniquely relevant this year. Candidate funds remain relevant to committee behavior, but not to a different extent than in years past.  

the nrcc and other ie groups such as crossroads share the major goal of a GOP-led house. Their goals may diverge in some important ways with implications for the sorts of districts that receive attention. The NRCC is focused to a greater extent on the GOP winning a majority and to a lesser extent on its future reputation/establishing itself.

Lots of R third party geoups want the GOP to win (obviously) but they also want to establish themselves as major players on the political scene. A part of that includes earning some scalps that they can point to. That may lead them to focus to a greater extent on emerging/second tier races. Relativeto the nrcc. In 2012, they may want to point to their perspicpacity in seeing that chris murphy/insert late-breaking race was endangered and took him out essentially single-handedly. Otoh, there is less incentive for those third parties to play in "boring" races like va-5, pa-3, etc as nobody would buy that some IE took down those incumbents.   That said, smeone needs to and, as past waves show, improbable incumbents will survive. So the nrcc might be more willing to focus on continuing to shoot at what look like dead bodies.   It would be interesting to see the extent of dccc involvement in races where significant third party action occurred in previous cycles, ca-11 was a big target for enviro groups and also looked like more of a second-tier target until late. IIRC, the dccc did not get involved until late and may not have to the extent it did in other seats flipped.  

[ Parent ]
Thank you, I really appreciate your efforts keeping us apprised (eom)

Quibble on MS-04:
Your interpretation of no spending by the DCCC is that Taylor is in trouble. But isn't the opposite more likely? That they're not too concerned about him (yet)? Otherwise, I'd imagine they'd be investing in the race significantly.
No no
you misunderstood my meaning.  I do see the lack of DCCC spending as a good sign.  That's why I still have this one as lean retention.  What I don't like is that both camps' internals show a single digit race.

34, WM, Democrat, FL-11
[ Parent ]
Gotcha, thanks n/t

[ Parent ]
TX-17
DCCC has an expenditure today for media creation.  Is this race back from the dead?

They also have another small ad buy today in VA-05, and media creation in VA-02, NY-23, PA-12, KY-06, IN-02, NY-23.  Mailers in a number of districts, including FL-25 (still on the list).  Still no spending in MS-04.

Yep here's the ad
http://dccc.org/media/bill_flo...

looks like the other new ads are up on their website as well.

[ Parent ]
Couple bits from the news on DCCC ad cancellations

cancelled ad buys for this week in NM-02, moved to NM-01.

http://www.nmpolitics.net/inde...

cancelled ad buys in Philadelphia ad market (PA-07/PA-08 I assume).

http://articles.mcall.com/2010...

I think Teague is probably experiencing triage.  The Philadelphia thing, well, I have no idea, seems like bad news.

[ Parent ]
Teague
He's wealthy, and I believe he has good cash on hand figures, too. So while the DCCC is practicing selective funding, I don't think it's leaving him to the wolves.

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  
[ Parent ]
Still bad news
that the cash flush DCCC has cancelled its previously extensive ad buys here.

The Periello ad buy is only about half what the DCCC did last week, so that's not great news either.

In TX-17, the DCCC is taking a flyer on Flores's government spending hypocrisy.  No word on the size of the buy yet.  I've heard rumblings all week that Edwards is sneaking back in it.  If he pulls this off in this year in this district, he's the most amazing politician ever.  Not that I think he will.

34, WM, Democrat, FL-11

[ Parent ]
If he pulls it off...
I will feel very vindicated for making the outlandish prediction a few days ago that he'll survive this election.

DCCC spending, even on non-broadcast media, is a good sign for Rep. Edwards.

Rep. Perriello is toast. I think Rep. Teague, while a casualty of triage, was dropped from the DCCC umbrella partly because he can self-fund; that was almost certainly a factor, because he's in a better position in polls than, say, Edwards or Rep. Shea-Porter.

20, center-left independent, Auckland Central resident, MD-05 voter, OR-01 native

[ Parent ]
Perriello is
really a goner? Damn. How small was the drop off in the media buy? Is there any independent spending in the district?

Also, what exactly does "media creation" mean?  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

[ Parent ]
Morning thoughts
Re: NM-02, that SUSA gov poll showed that Martinez is up big in early voting.  I think that things are probably going poorly in NM, and thus they're moving away from NM-02, which has probably become unwinnable, to NM-01, which has become very competitive.  It's not a bad seat to cut loose compared to, say, TX-17 or OH-18, because I think NM-02 will be much more easy to win back in the next cycle.

Re: Philly ad buy cancellation.  I was thinking it is probably the case that DCCC is just chasing NRCC spending in general, and since NRCC isn't really going after this market, DCCC is holding off.  I can't imagine them doing that if it were the case that PA-07/PA-08 really needed the help, so either these seats are way behind or better than public polls portray.  I always thought that if Sestak wins PA, then PA-07/PA-08 will probably stay D, because that's where Sestak's GOTV effort will concentrate.  PA-03/PA-11, however, may be lost no matter what.  With the PPP poll showing Sestak is truly in a dead heat, and the enthusiasm gap lessening in PA, I think PA-07/PA-08, while still difficult to read, may be slightly lean D toss-ups.

[ Parent ]
I kind of wondered
the same thin about the Pennsylvania seats.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?
[ Parent ]
Hopefully you don't mind me turning this into I.E. chat
http://hotlineoncall.nationalj...

DCCC is buying NC-11 for homestretch, increasing ad buys in NC-07, SC-05.  Probably just putting up a firewall of retentions, but who knows, maybe trouble is brewing.

Please do.


34, WM, Democrat, FL-11
[ Parent ]
The article
mentions that Schuler is being pummeled with outsider ads. And when you figure that there's a lot less Democratic involvement in those states compared to, say, Nevada, Illinois, and Pennsylvnia, in South Carolina in particular, it makes sense to see them more as firewall moves than anything else. Has there been any polling to indicate these guys are in a much closer race than we thought? Have they moved money out of, say, MD-01 into these districts?  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?
[ Parent ]
New and Improved House I.E. Analysis | 60 comments

Copyright 2003-2010 Swing State Project LLC

Primary Sponsor

You're not running for second place. Is your website? See why Campaign Engine is ranked #1 in software and support among Progressive-only Internet firms. http://www.mediamezcla.com/

Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?

About the Site

Publisher: DavidNYC

Senior Editor: James L.

Senior Editor: Crisitunity

Contributing Editor: Jeffmd

Search the SSP archives:

Sign up to receive a daily e-mail whenever the SSP is updated:

SSP Resources

Presidential Vote by CD

SSP Document Collection

Race Tracker Wiki

Dave's Redistricting App

Blogroll

Daily Kos Elections
DemConWatch
Five Thirty Eight
Governing
Hotline On Call
Political Wire
Pollster.com
Prop*50
Public Policy Polling
The Thicket
Powered by: SoapBlox