Independent Expenditure Roundup: 10/20-26

42 thoughts on “Independent Expenditure Roundup: 10/20-26”

1. Anybody have an idea how much money the DCCC has left?

2. Another $400,000 spent in VA-11, an open seat. Does anyone at this site think this one is tight?

   Does anyone think this race has been tight since, oh, it became clear that Byrnes was not going to be the nominee, that Connolly, a popular county official accused of [the horror of it all] friendly relations with rich real estate developers, would be the one raising funds to turn this seat blue?

   Does anyone else here have any other ideas on how to spend $400,000 in the last week or so of this map-changing, realigning, wave year election? Immediately forward your suggestions to the DCCC or your nearest flush toilet, same difference.

3. You got the color of the two Alabama seat’s switched.

4. AL-05 isn’t close anymore.  Shift some of those dollars to a race that is close — where winning would demoralize some Republicans and give us a seat we can hold.  Josh Segall needs help in Alabama’s third.

5. For the love God DCCC. BARON HILL DOES NOT NEED THE MONEY!!! Alright, after all the polls showing he had a comfortable lead over one term wonder Mike Sodrel. He’s okay and it’s time to cut him off and pass that money on to other candidates who can really need it.

6. –Delighted to see the spending in FL-25 and WY-AL.  They should drop a lot more in both because Joe Garcia and Gary Trauner would be outstanding wins and congressman.

   –Carol Shea-Porter’s internals must be weak as heck.  That’s a lot of money.

   –What took so long for the spending to start in TX-22?  Even if Lampson’s numbers have looked stronger than expected, the DCCC came pretty late here.

   –I’m sure they’re not happy to spend so much in NJ-03, but it’s necessary to ensure Adler comes out on top.

   –I am a little more nervous about AL-05 than the DCCC seems to be.

   –Bye bye, Mahoney.  

7. dang, they’ve spent more money on this race than any other.  I feel pretty confident we’ll win this one and hopefully have at worst a 6/2 Dem advantage.  

   Glad to see some big buys in WA-8, NV-3, FL-21 and 25, IL-10, and OH-1.  These are all seats I hope we win and that I expect us to hold for a long time once we do.

8. Because I have no idea where my money is going to end up at. I could be donateing $30 to them because I want to help out a candidate in a tight race, instead my money could be going to help out Baron Hill and Gerry Connelly, two Dems that don’t need help from the D-trip whatsoever.

   That’s why when I want to donate to a Democrat, I do it through their own campaign. That way I know that my money will go directly to where I want it to go, right to the candidate I wanted.

9.    More money for Kirkpatrick, Conolly, and Halvorson.  Why don’t we give some money to Perlmutter and Sestak too?  I heard that they also have sentient opponents.

10. That’s the sound of $3,406,275 being flushed down the drain in seats that even the most conservative estimates consider leaning strongly to our side. That’s not even counting places like WI-08, PA-10, PA-03, OH-15, NY-29, NV-03, NM-01, NJ-07, NJ-03, MN-03, MI-07, MI-09, LA-06, KS-02, ID-01, CO-04, CT-04 and AL-05 which would more then double the number.

    To be frank. The DCCC is wasting millions of dollars of money and squandering lots of opportunities. You’ve got to take a few risks to gain anything and while we’ll probably win big the DCCC has squandered millions that likely would have been able to make those gains larger by quite a bit.

11. I have to stick up for the committee, Van Hollen, and their spending decisions.

    First of all, the committees primary responsibility is to re-elect their incumbents. This explains why they are spending money they way they are on Baron Hill, Ciro Rodriguez, Carol Shea-Porter, etc. The first two have already lost re-election before — so I’m sure there is some sense that perhaps the DCCC didn’t do enough to help the first time around. Furthermore, the motivating factor to spend money on these races is likely out of a desire to drive up their winning percentages. When the Republicans meet in December or January to figure out an initial round of targets — they will first look to anyone winning with 55% or less.  If we can get Baron, Ciro, Mitchell, Giffords, McNerney, and a few other potential targets to 57-60%, then its less likely that they will be a top target for the nrcc in 2010 — and its also more likely that top tier challengers will decide to take on the race. An incumbent who gets 58% of the vote on election day is a lot less attractive than one that only gets 52 or 53 percent.

    Secondly, it makes perfect sense for the DCCC to spend on Halvorson, Connolly and Kilpatrick for the very same reasons I listed above. Yes, we should win these seats (“should” being the operative word, as we also “should” have fun the Mahoney seat 10 days ago…), BUT as we all have learned, anything can happen. It’s imperative that we win these seats on November 4th if we are to have a House majority that lasts for at least a few more cycles. And let’s not forget that these new members could all potentially  be top targets for the nrcc in 2010 despite the democratic leanings of their districts (they are, after all, represented by republicans right now). If we can score convincing wins this time around (think Brad Ellsworth), then its less likely that a top tier challenge will join the race.

    It’s really disappointing when the netroots community feels the need to harp on the DCCC and their decisions — with threats to stop contributing or calling into question their spending strategy.

    In many districts around the country, an ad or campaign literature from “the democratic congressional campaign committee” would not be warmly received — and so they dccc has to occasionally tread lightly, and maybe transfer funds to the state party or simply raise contributions from their national donors directly for the campaign. In other instances, the it makes more sense to use the element of surprise with some of these republicans, and to run ads in the closing 5 or 6 days of the campaign.

    I wouldn’t be so quick to question the dccc’s strategy under van hollen. he is an incredibly bright and politically savvy individual. And Rahm Emanual  — the same man who orchestrating the democratic takeover of the House and achieved a feat very few thought was conceivable when he first took the reins of the committee in early January 2007 — continues to have a commanding voice in all the dccc’s operations.  

    With all due respect, I know we all love to follow politics, and we’re all incredibly passionate about the races and our favorite candidates — but I personally think sometimes we should acknowledge that the people running the dccc — van hollen, emanuel, pelosi, other active Members, political staff — actually know what they are doing.  They have, after all, actually run races and won.  How many of us on SSP can say the same?

    Yes, in 2006 we missed some opportunities (Kissell for example) and there were some races that we won that we never expected — but the decisions made by the dccc resulted in us winning the House and electing some wonderful, intelligent, and hardworking Democrats.

    Will we end up winning some races the dccc didn’t get heavily involved in this time around? — I hope so (then that means we’ve had another wave election in our favor!)

    Will we lose 2 or 3 close races where an additional $100k from the dccc could have made the difference? — undoubtedly, but things like that are going to happen every election cycle.

    I’d expect our republican counterpart to be questioning the expenditures and political intelligence of the nrcc — but not us.  After all, we’ve capitalized on an incredibly favorable political environment for the Democrats, and we’re running competitive races in places that haven’t elected a Democrat in decades (or ever!) — so the DCCC must be doing something right.  🙂

     

12. it’s not some simple disagreements over races where we seem to have overspent. it’s the entire flawed strategy of not being able to cut a candidate loose at the end.

    if we see some surprise money dropped in places like AL-03, IA-04, and the two Houston races then I’ll feel a little better.
    

Comments are closed.