Analysis: How well did Minnesota Candidates Spend Money?

by: MNCampaignReport

Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 9:49 AM EST

The National Journal (subscription req'd) recently dug into disbursement records for Congressional and Senate candidates in the 2006 election to answer an interesting question:  How much did a given candidate spend on each vote he or she eventually received?  Alternately, how efficiently did candidates spend their hard-earned warchests?

As noted, this is an interesting question, especially when it comes to Minnesota.  The 2006 U.S. Senate race between Hennepin County Attorney Amy Klobuchar and Sixth District Congressman Mark Kennedy saw nearly $20 million in candidate committee disbursements, and the race between Michele Bachmann and Patty Wetterling to succeed Kennedy in his Congressional seat was quite expensive as well. 

But there's something missing from the National Journal's analysis.  Even in an underfunded position, a certain number of voters are always going to vote a certain way - what's usually known as "the base".  The Republican base was never going to vote for Amy Klobuchar in statistically significant numbers, nor was the DFL base going to defect in droves to the Kennedy banner.  It's the votes beyond the base - the marginal votes earned - that might yield more insightful data.

Likewise, there's a margin in terms of dollars spent.  Even marginally competitive candidates are going to raise and spend at least a certain level of money - it's what they raise and spend beyond that level that we can focus on as a measure of their effectiveness.

This Marginal Dollars per Marginal Positive Outcome has been used by Baseball Prospectus in analyzing clubs' efficiency in spending - high-revenue teams like the Yankees, Red Sox, Cubs, and Dodgers pay dearly for each win above what a team of rookies, each paid the league minimum, would achieve.

Enough baseball - more political statistics!

Some definitions:

• --Net Disb:  Net Disbursements from the candidate's primary campaign committee, courtesy of FEC.gov
• --dBP:  District Base Percentage.  This is a somewhat fudged figure, based on convention wisdom about the political dynamics in each district and statewide.  It accounts for a slight DFL tilt statewide, conservative tilts in the Second and Sixth Congressional Districts, a heavy tilt toward the DFL in the Fifth, and a generally even balance in the First.
• --dTV:  District Total Votes.  Total number of votes cast in this race for competitive major-party candidates.  Fifth District candidate Tammy Lee counted in this analysis, as did John Binkowski in the Sixth, but Robert Fitzgerald and others did not.
• --Bvotes:  Base votes.  Candidate's vote total times their base percentage - again somewhat fudged due to conventional wisdom.
• --Mvotes:  Marginal votes.  Total votes minus base votes - this is an attempt to represent votes the candidate earned over the course of the campaign beyond those that would vote for a carrot with the right letter after its name.
• --Mdisb:  Marginal Disbursements.  This is another somewhat fudged figure.  In the several competitive congressional races in Minnesota, I defined the minimum spending level as that of Alan Fine, Republican candidate in the Fifth District, who raised and spent a shade under $200,000.  For the Senate race, I defined "competitive funding" as a cool $3,000,000 - in an inexpensive media market, three million should provide at least a modicum of competitiveness in a statewide federal race.  If anyone has a better figure for this, I'm all ears.
• --mD/mV:Marginal Dollars Spent per Marginal Vote Earned - the mother lode.

Caveats:  There are several fudge points in this analysis, including the base percentages and disbursement levels.  I hope they're generally accurate.  This analysis also does not account for larger political events and trends, including hurricanes, wars, and ineptitude leading to popular dissatisfaction.  Nor does it account for independent expenditures by political parties and outside organizations, the effects of which are difficult to quantify.

Nevertheless, in the aftermath of 2006, this analysis may further clarify who spent money well and who did not.

The chart above reveals some interesting trends.  Many of the mD/mV numbers make sense - Mark Kennedy spent a lot of money on each vote he earned, because he didn't get many beyond his base.  Tim Walz, in defeating entrenched incumbent Gil Gutknecht, spent his smaller warchest efficiently.  Although Keith Ellison had a natural advantage in a DFL-friendly district, it turns out that he spent a fairly high dollar amount for each vote beyond the hardcore DFL vote, and Tammy Lee spent efficiently, if only to achieve a 25% finish.  And fittingly, the Sixth District race saw two candidates spending massive amounts of money for each vote beyond their bases.

Given the final outcome, it appears that this was an extremely inefficient race on which to spend money.

2006 House Race Expenditure Round-up, Part Three

by: James L.

Wed Jan 24, 2007 at 5:01 PM EST

Today brings our next and final installment in our round-up of 2006 House race expenditures (see here, here, and here for the other entries). Sorry for the lag between entries--I had a busier week than I expected (to make up for it, today's diary will feature glorious color).

Today, we'll look at two areas: competitive open seats and the handful of races where Democratic incumbents were on the defensive.

As usual, the "Spent" column indicates candidate expenditures, and "Other IEs" includes all independent expenditures made by PACs who filed with the FEC, but not 527 activity. The column on the far right, labeled "MoV", indicates the current members' margin of victory. In most cases I used Secretary of State numbers, but in a few races I relied upon CNN. All numbers were subject to rounding.

First, the open seats:

One thing to note here is that when tallying IE expenditures, I did not include expenditures by PACs against candidates who did not make it through the primary (e.g. the money that the Club For Growth spent against Dean Heller and for Sharon Angle in the NV-02 GOP primary). It's noteworthy to highlight that GOP-allied PACs were more likely to show up in these open seat races than they were in races where Republican incumbents were on the defensive, but Democratic allies still outspent them by a 5-3 ratio. Of these expenditures, the most heartwarming perhaps is the $3.4 million that the NRCC spent against Zack ("Lost In") Space, only to see the former Dover Law Director clean up by a whopping 24 points. More curiously, though, was the decision by both committees to largely stay out of the ultra-competitive FL-13 race. I could understand the NRCC holding back, when their candidate had bottomless pockets, but I'm not sure what the DCCC's strategy was here.

Finally, we have the shortlist of "competitive" Democratic races. A few of these were legitimately competitive, while some represent nothing more than wishful thinking from national Republicans earlier on in the election cycle. Do you remember how badly the NRCC and the White House wanted to spook John Spratt (SC-05) in 2005? With Spratt's 14-point victory and Republicans retreating from the battlefield early, you have to wonder if anyone significant will have the fortitude to try again in 2008.

2006 House Race Expenditure Round-up, Part Two

by: James L.

Fri Jan 19, 2007 at 7:37 PM EST

On Tuesday, we looked at the biggest non-party independent expenditures of 2006 in House races, and yesterday, we looked at expenditures of all kinds in 22 of the 23 races where Democratic challengers beat House Republican incumbents. Let's pick up where we left off and take a look at the heartbreakers of 2006--34 competitive races where the Democratic candidate fell short of toppling an incumbent.

How do we define "competitive"? Well, in this study, I used a compromise of a number of metrics: races where either party committee made significant expenditures, races where the incumbent had a margin of victory under 15%, races with significant (usually $1M+) challenger expenditures, and races with significant independent expenditures. In most of these cases, there is significant overlap between those guidelines of "competitiveness".

As usual, the "Spent" column indicates candidate expenditures, and "Other IEs" includes all independent expenditures made by PACs who filed with the FEC, but not 527 activity. I have also added a column on the far right indicating the incumbents' margin of victory. In most cases I used Secretary of State numbers, but in a few races I relied upon CNN. All numbers were subject to rounding.

Notes: *This expenditure was made by the RNC, not the NRCC.
**Due to the labyrinthian backstory of Jean Schmidt's travails in OH-02 from 2005-06, it's difficult to sort out which expenditures apply to which period of her career: the special election of 2005, the primary battle last spring, and the 2006 general. I did my best to sort it out, but the picture isn't entirely clear. For that reason, take these figures with a grain of salt.

Unsurprisingly, Republicans enjoyed more of a financial edge in these races; combining all expenditures, there was a nearly $30 million gap between Republican and Democratic expenditures in these 34 districts. The NRCC did not swamp out the DCCC in these districts by a large margin. NRCC/RNC buys amounted to 55% of the party committee expenditures, while the DCCC was responsible for the remainder. This is very close to the 56-44 NRCC ratio in the seats that the Democrats did pick up from incumbents.

Obviously, this list will bring up some woulda-coulda-shouldas: imagine what Larry Kissell or Eric Massa or Linda Stender could have accomplished with more DCCC IEs, for instance. But it should also highlight some badly underperforming incumbents for next time: Knollenberg in MI-09, Terry in NE-02, and Dent in PA-15, for instance, all posted very underwhelming returns given the financial uncompetitiveness of each of their races.

Oh, and speaking of Linda Stender, here's one maddening note from last November's results: if the 3176 votes that the "Withdraw Troops Now Party" candidate won in NJ-07 had been cast for Stender instead, she would have won by about 250 votes. Sigh.

On the weekend, I'll conclude this series with expenditure round-ups for competitive open seats and the select districts where Democratic incumbents were on the defensive.

2005/06 House Race Expenditure Round-up, Part One

by: James L.

Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 7:30 PM EST

Continuing our analysis of House race expenditures of the 05/06 elections cycle (we looked at the top ten non-party committee expenditures of the cycle on Tuesday), today I'll be posting total expenditures from the 22 races where a Democratic challenger beat a Republican incumbent (with the exception of TX-23, where I haven't been able to accumulate all the relevant data yet). And by total, I mean everything except expenditures from the shadowy 527s: candidate expenditures (listed under the "Spent" column), party committee expenditures, and independent expenditures from all sources.

Here's what I've tallied up:

Now, obviously, these numbers don't tell anything close to the full story--they don't discern between positive and negative expenditures, the nature of the expenditures, and the time frame of the expenditures. But the basic framework makes it a decent starting point for our discussion. Note that total expenditures from all sources gave the Republicans a nearly $20 million edge ($89M to $69M) in these 21 districts. Also note how the mediocre fundraising of former New Hampshire Reps. Bass ($1.2M) and Bradley ($0.86M) foreshadowed their surprise defeats last November. Another interesting fact: in this top tier of House races, Republican-allied PACs were almost nowhere to be found--in fact, if it weren't for the $1 million spent by the National Association of Realtors PAC in support of Anne Northup (KY-03), Democrats would've enjoyed a 7-to-1 non-party IE advantage in these districts. Instead, they settled for 7-to-2.

Tomorrow I'll be posting part two of this discussion, featuring expenditures from open seats, competitive races where Democratic challengers fell short, and the few races where Republican House challengers put Democratic incumbents on the defensive.

The Top Ten Non-Party Independent Expenditures of 2005/6

by: James L.

Tue Jan 16, 2007 at 7:14 PM EST

Over the past few weeks, I've been spending a bit of time doing research into independent expenditures made by party committees and independent PACs to get a better sense of how the IE battle played out in many key races across the country. One of the things that I thought would be interesting to share with you all is a top ten list, for both our side and theirs, of the biggest non-party committee expenditures of the cycle for House races. Here's what the Republican-allied side looks like:

And here's what our side looks like:

Aside from a few big players (most notably the National Realtors PAC, who also made considerable expenditures on behalf of Ed Case's primary challenge to Sen. Daniel Akaka, as well as Melissa Bean's re-election campaign), there is a steep drop-off on the Republican side in terms of the number and quality of IEs relative to the robust and broadly-focused expenditures made by Democratic-allied PACs. Another thing to note is that these Republican expenditures are listed as disproportionately positive, while the Democratic expenditures were disproportionately classified as negative expenditures. Keep in mind, though, that such homogenous categories may betray the shades of grey that exist in such expenditures--this money could have been spent on advertising that contained a mix of positive and negative messages, but the particular committee may have chosen to file an expenditure as "for" a candidate rather than "against" someone else.

I'm still puttering around with a lot more numbers like these, so if anyone has any other research suggestions under the category of expenditures, please feel free to make a suggestion.

Narrowest Dem House Incumbent Performances in 2006

by: DavidNYC

Tue Dec 26, 2006 at 10:17 PM EST

The following incumbent House Dems won with 55% or less this year. The chart is sorted by margin of victory:

Melancon and Bean are rising sophomores and both won very narrowly in 2004. It's not a surprise to see them here, especially since Bean received an insanely well-funded challenge this year. Both Melancon and Bean also had their vote totals chiseled away at the left, in Bean's case by a former Dem who ran as a third-party spoiler this year, and in Melancon's by a nobody Dem who was able to run on Nov. 7th in Louisiana's, ah, unique "jungle primary" system.

Carson, Boswell, and Hooley (all multi-year incumbents) are on the under-55 list for the second straight cycle. Boswell's margin was nearly halved (10.5% in 2004), though he also received a serious top-tier challenge. He hasn't had an easy pass since 2000, though, and his bouts with illness (Boswell is in his 70s) seem to make him a regular target.

Carson's health and age are also continually an issue in her district, and, like Boswell, she hasn't gotten over 55% since 2000. Unlike Boswell, though, her last two challengers were absolute nobodies who raised nothing. Her margin from 2004 to 2006 also shrunk more than three points, despite this being a strong Democratic year. And, as you can see, her district is by far the bluest on this list - John Kerry won here 58-42.

Hooley, meanwhile, did about three points better this time around, despite facing a challenger who raised almost $1.8m. 2004 was no cakewalk either, when her opponent raised $1.3m.

That leaves the two Georgia members, Barrow and Marshall. Both saw their districts become much more Republican after the GA state legislature embarked on a mid-decade redistricting (following Tom DeLay's cue in Texas). Barrow, like Bean and Melancon, was also a freshman. Both he and Marshall also saw top-tier, big-money challenges. Yes, they barely held on in a big Dem wave, but they also ran in districts which were half-new to them.

To put this list in some perspective, the following GOPers who got under 55% in 2004 lost this year: Rob Simmons (CT-02); Chris Chocola (IN-02); John Hostettler (IN-08); and Mike Sodrel (IN-09). Bob Beauprez's open seat (CO-07) also changed hands. And Chris Shays (CT-04), Jon Porter (NV-03), Heather Wilson (NM-01), Randy Kuhl (NY-29), Jim Gerlach (PA-06) and Dave Reichert (WA-08) all had very close shaves.

2006 Elections: The 35 Closest House Races (w/poll)

by: Predictor

Tue Dec 19, 2006 at 5:06 PM EST

Some have asserted that if the DCCC had reacted to some of these races and provided necessary funding, we could have picked up more seats. Others have claimed that the DCCC did the best it could with the resources on hand and the fact that the RNCC had to pour money & resources into normally safe GOP Districts, benefited us nationwide.

I'll let y'all come to your own conclusions about that, because the purpose of this Diary is more from a Statistical/Tactical Perspective for 2008 regarding the lessons we've learned from the 2006 Midterms.

Caveat: Races won by over 10,000 votes (either side) are not included in the Parameters of this Study, though any number of those could be in play in '08, plus many other seats may be on the horizon that were not in-play in 2006. On the same note, many of these races shown below may not be close for us in '08, but are sure to get some attention.

More below the fold. Enjoy!

Graphic Anatomy of Victory: Illinois (w/maps)

by: ManfromMiddletown

Sun Dec 17, 2006 at 4:43 PM EST

Already covered have been New England, NY, NJ, MD, and DE, PA, OH, IN, MI, and Wisconsin.

Today's diary will focus on Illinois. As always first up are the seat control maps, no seats changed hands in Illinois.

Illinois

Chicago Metro Area

Graphic Anatomy of Victory: Wisconsin (w/maps)

by: ManfromMiddletown

Sat Dec 16, 2006 at 5:07 AM EST

This is the eight in a series of diaries depicting the Democratic victory in this year's midterm elections. Other diaries in this series can be seen here.

Already covered have been New England, NY, NJ, MD, and DE, PA, OH, IN, and Michigan.

Today's diary will focus on Wisconsin. As always first up are the seat control maps.

2004

2006

A Graphic Anatomy of Victory: Michigan (w/maps)

by: ManfromMiddletown

Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 12:30 AM EST

Already covered have been New England, NY, NJ, MD, and DE, PA, OH, and Indiana.

Today's diary will focus on Michigan.  As always first up are the seat control maps, and in this case there's only one map because no seats changed hands in 2006.

2004 & 2006