Tag: DCCC

By: Jordan Wells and Kevin Hrit – (Disclosure: Jordan worked as Nancy Skinner’s Online Outreach Organizer in 2006. Kevin worked as Nancy Skinner’s Field Director in 2006, and crunched numbers for Practical Political Consulting in Lansing.)

Michigan’s 9th Congressional District will be one of the top targeted races for 2008. The DCCC has already aired ads exposing Knollenberg’s awful record on veterans. Knollenberg is under fire from citizen action groups, and has been constantly bashed in letters to the editor throughout the district. Knollenberg is beatable. He narrowly won the ’06 election with 51% of the vote, and has 15% less money now than he did this time that cycle.

It appears the 9th District has undergone a sudden blue trend. However the Democratic base in the district has been growing steadily for the last eight years. Despite the growing Democratic base, Joe Knollenberg continues to cruise to electoral success versus weak challengers.

Jump below the fold for an extremely detailed analysis of the numbers from the 9th District.

In 2002 David Fink performed 2.21% below the Democratic base, with 39.89% of the vote, despite raising 1.2 million and contributing 1.2 million of his own.  In 2004 Steve Reifman performed 6.80% below the Democratic base, with 39.54% of the vote. In 2006 Nancy Skinner performed 4.28% below the Democratic base, with 46.21% of the vote. The Democratic base in 2006 was 50.49% (in ’02 it was 42.19%, in ’04 46.34%).

Clearly the 9th District is more competitive than the election results make it appear, which is great news given Knollenberg’s low vote totals in 2006. Democratic candidates in the 9th have failed to win over independent voters and even win over all Democratic voters. This has been due to a lack of fundraising, lack of connection with voters in the district, and lack of clear understanding of the 9th district.

Currently the two potential contenders for the 9th District nomination are Nancy Skinner and Gary Peters. Nancy ran for the 9th in 2006. Gary’s last election was 2002 when he ran for Attorney General.

In the 2002 Attorney General race, Gary Peters performed at or above the Democratic base in 72% of 9th district precincts (234 out of 325). This certainly puts the candidate’s performance in perspective. While losing by 4,677 votes in Bloomfield Township, Peters actually performed above base in all 36 precincts of the township. In his former home city of Rochester Hills, he outperformed base by 4.66%, in 30 of 32 precincts.  Despite losing the AG race Peters out performed the Democratic base in 72% of the 9th District. Consider that this is a statewide election, and each candidate did not necessarily concentrate on persuading 9th District voters. Peters was above base in 19 of 22 jurisdictions, and just slightly under base in the other 3 (within 2.2%).

Let’s look at Peters’ 1998 State Senate campaign, where he could campaign locally. In this election Peters performed at or above base in 99% of the precincts (155 of 156 precincts).  It is worth noting that in his run for State Senate in 1994, he won a five way primary with 51% of the votes, despite facing formidable challenges from Democratic contenders in a district stretching from Pontiac down through Southfield.  Then went on to win his first term in the Senate.

In 2004 Steve Reifman performed 6.80% below the Democratic base, taking 39.54% of the vote. These results have negatively effected the perception of our district and promoted the idea that no Democrat could win there.

In 2006 Nancy Skinner performed 4.28% below the Democratic base, with 46.21% of the vote. She only performed over base in 18 precincts out of 319 precincts (over base in 5.64%) and only 1 jurisdiction.

In 2004 Nancy also ran for Senate in Illinois. She lost in the primary (to Barack Obama), and as Kevin can tell you, being a first time candidate is really tough.

In Royal Oak City, where Nancy grew up, she performed 4.00% below base. In Birmingham, where the campaign office was located, where her dad coached high school football and where she lived during the campaign, she still performed 0.38% below base.

Gary Peters strong performances are due to the stances he has taken. He was a leader in the fight to protect Great Lakes water, earning him the Sierra Club's Environmentalist of the Year Award. Peters was the Democratic Caucus Chair in the State Senate, and ranking member on more policy committees than any other Senator. You can read more about Gary's biography at this profile article about him in the Michigan Bar Journal.

Nancy Skinner's support comes from her time on a radio talk show in the district. She promoted sustainable living, and worked on the Chicago Climate Exchange. She won a medal from working with the Clinton administration in 1993 for her efforts in rebuilding flood ravaged communities with sustainable building techniques on the Mississippi river delta. You can read more about Nancy on her bio page from her campaign website.

Neither candidate has filed with the FEC. Nancy Skinner's federal committee from 2006 remains open with $18,000+…although she has not filed any of the required reports for 2007. Gary Peters maintains a State Leadership PAC with $20,000+ (as of July '07) which can not be spent on a federal campaign, although he has been supportive of the State and County Party and candidates.

 

CRITICAL NUMBERS

98 Base 14SD : 61.08% 

98 Peters :.65.48% 

98 Peters Performance v. Base : +4.40

02 Base : 42.19% 

02 Fink : 39.89%

02 Fink Performance v. Base : -2.29%

02 Peters : 45.52%

02 Peters Performance v. Base : +3.33%

04 Base : 46.34%

04 Reifman : 39.54%

04 Reifman Performance v. Base : -6.80%

06 Base : 50.49% 

06 Skinner : 46.21%

06 Skinner Performance v. Base : -4.28%

 

Here are the numbers and facts, please draw your own conclusions.

My co-author at The Progressive Connection, Matt Lockshin, recently received a solicitation letter that was disturbingly disingenuous and duplicitous, even while still managing to maintain that elusive whiff of incompetence we’ve all come to associate with the Democratic Party. The letter was addressed to Matt at his address in Emeryville, California. Problem is, Matt doesn’t live in Emeryville; he lives in Oakland. But, as it turns out, that’s the least of our worries.

The letter started off with this grand statement:

Emeryville Area

Democratic Party 2007 Annual Fund Drive

Dear Matt Lockshin,

As one of Emeryville’s most committed Democrats, you played a key role in the sweeping 2006 election victory that helped our Party make history.

Now we need your help to enact our agenda for change and move America in a New Direction. That’s why I’m asking you to join other leading Democrats in the Emeryville area in supporting the Democratic Party 2007 Annual Fund Drive with a generous gift of $15, $25, $35, $50 or more today.

So let’s stop right there. Who do you think sent this letter to Matt?

Was it the Emeryville Democratic Club? The Alameda County Democratic Central Committee? The California Democratic Party? The DNC? (Hint: there is no Emeryville Democratic Club)

Wrong. The letter came from the DCCC.

Now, if you were an everyday resident of Emeryville, maybe even one of its “most committed Democrats,” you might receive that letter and think that donating to the Emeryville Area Democratic Party 2007 Annual Fund Drive was a handy and useful way to spend your donor dollars — sort of a United Way for politics. You might reasonably assume that your money would be going to support various local candidates and local party building activities. You know, in Emeryville.

So you might be very surprised to learn that your contribution to the Emeryville Area Democratic Party 2007 Annual Fund Drive was going to support candidates like Heath Shuler (NC-11), who opposes a woman’s right to choose. You might be even more surprised to find out that your dollars were going to support candidates like Gabrielle Giffords (AZ-08) who voted against  the McGovern bill to redeploy the troops within nine months and for  the Bush blank check last week. And you might be downright shocked to discover that your money was going to support Chris Carney (PA-10) who voted against the expansion of federal hate crime legislation to include crimes against people based on their gender, sexual orientation, and gender identity.

But the DCCC is banking on the fact that most of the people who got that letter are going to be low-information Democrats. They’re going to send in their money to support the Emeryville Area Democratic Party 2007 Annual Fund Drive. They’re not going to ask too many questions about how their donations will be spent. And they’re going to feel good about the fact that they helped to support their Democratic Party.

But here’s the problem. When candidates in Emeryville’s local Assembly District race come looking for support, when candidates in the local State Senate race come looking for support, when candidates for Congress come looking for support — even when candidates for president come looking for support in Emeryville, the residents of Emeryville are going to say, “Oh, I already contributed — to the Emeryville Area Democratic Party 2007 Annual Fund Drive.”

Read the whole thing and weep:

Cross posted at The Progressive Connection

The DCCC is not sitting around waiting for Rick Renzi to resign. According to the Washington Post, they have established a special election fund for the eventual nominee.

Readying for a special election, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has opened a special election fund to collect cash that would benefit the party’s eventual nominee. If a vacancy occurs, the Democratic special election nominee would benefit from an immediate cash infusion from this fund. The DCCC began raising money yesterday for the effort.

“Rick Renzi’s seat was a target before his family business was raided by the FBI. It’s even more so now. If and when there is special election, the Democratic candidate will have the support needed to win,” said Jennifer Crider, a DCCC spokeswoman.

I’ll wait until I see a resignation. But if and when it happens, I will be ready to do my part.

Here’s what the House committees will report in their first quarter fundraising filings, according to this Roll Call article (2003 1Q numbers in parens for comparison):

Committee	1Q 2007 (2003)	Cash-on-Hand	Debt
DCCC	$19m ($7.4m)	$9.8m	$4.9m
NRCC	$15.8m ($22.9m)	$2.5m	$7.9m

Lookout, Republicans. With less cash-on-hand, more debt, and fundraising down 31% over the same period four years ago, the GOP’s long-vaunted fundraising dominance is coming to an end. Without the ability to swamp their Democratic opponents with huge media buys like in years past, House Republicans could be seriously imperiled, yet again.

During the 2006 election cycle, you may recall that the DCCC had a modestly-sized “Frontline 10” program, identifying potentially endangered incumbents for additional support and resources.  In 2006, that slate included Reps. John Barrow (GA-12), Melissa Bean (IL-08), Leonard Boswell (IA-03), Chet Edwards (TX-17), Stephanie Herseth (SD-AL), Brian Higgins (NY-27), Jim Matheson (UT-02), Charlie Melancon (LA-03), Dennis Moore (KS-03), and John Salazar (CO-03).

Unsurprisingly, with the surge of freshmen Democrats entering the House last November, this program has been expanded dramatically to 29 incumbents:

Jason Altmire (PA-04)
Michael Arcuri (NY-24)
John Barrow (GA-12)
Melissa Bean (IL-08)
Leonard Boswell (IA-03)
Christopher Carney (PA-10)
Joe Courtney (CT-02)
Joe Donnelly (IN-02)
Chet Edwards (TX-17)
Brad Ellsworth (IN-08)
Gabrielle Giffords (AZ-08)
Kirsten Gillibrand (NY-20)
John Hall (NY-19)
Baron Hill (IN-09)
Paul Hodes (NH-02)
Steve Kagen (WI-08)
Ron Klein (FL-22)
Nick Lampson (TX-22)
Tim Mahoney (FL-16)
Jim Marshall (GA-08)
Jerry McNerney (CA-11)
Harry Mitchell (AZ-05)
Christopher Murphy (CT-05)
Patrick Murphy (PA-08)
Ciro Rodriguez (TX-23)
Heath Shuler (NC-11)
Zack Space (OH-18)
Tim Walz (MN-01)
John Yarmuth (KY-03)

Barrow, Bean, Boswell, and Edwards appear to be the only holdovers from the class of 2006.  Rep. Jim Marshall is the only non-freshman addition to this list.

On the face of it, there are some fairly surprising omissions from this list: fresmen Reps. David Loebsack (IA-02), Carol Shea-Porter (NH-01), Nancy Boyda (KS-02), and Joe Sestak (PA-07).  But before jumping to conclusions, I touched bases with the DCCC, and they released the following statement regarding the omission of Shea-Porter and Boyda:

Representatives Boyda and Shea-Porter ran strong, independent grassroots campaigns. Should the Republicans target them with misleading or baseless attacks we stand ready to help.

That has me breathing a lot easier.  Boyda and Shea-Porter won on the strength of intensely local, intensely grassroots campaigns, and it seems clear that the DCCC will let them do their own thing in their re-election bids, but will not hesitate to intervene with independent expenditures should the Republicans attack machine land some body blows against these Representatives.

The omission of Sestak and Loebsack is probably based on the DCCC’s confidence in Democrats being able to hold districts with a Democratic lean (D+3.6 for Sestak, and D+6.9 for Loebsack).  I won’t disagree with that, but Loebsack probably could use some extra scratch to more firmly entrench himself in his district.

The other omission that I’m seeing here is Rep. Julia Carson (IN-07).  While she may represent a decently Democratic district (Kerry did win 58% here, after all), her 8-point victory against a badly underfunded challenger in 2006 has got to be cause for concern.  Perhaps the DCCC is betting on a retirement here.  Who knows.

In 2006, we saw an mini-sized Frontline Program and an huge Red To Blue list.  Expect a reversal in 2008.

Oh… My… Goodness!

If you thought it was hard for Jerry McNerney to unseat Pombo in 2006, just wait until 2008…
Or not, especially since the Republicans are already laying the groundwork to retake the 11th District.

So what can we do to help McNerney hold onto CA-11? What can we do to keep this area blue?

More after the flip…

I still remember what happened in the 11th last year. I remember way back when, when I wondered if it was more likely that Pete McCloskey would beat Pombo in the Republican Primary than any Democrat knocking off Pombo. Oh yes, and I still remember the Democratic Primary and the “mysterious forces” behind Steve Filson. I remember how the DCCC originally gave McNerney the cold shrug after he won the primary, and I must admit that I’m still somewhat miffed about it. However, I remember how the Republicans freaked out at the last minute, as they finally began to realize that Pombo was in deep trouble.

And despite all that happened, McNerney won by a fairly comfortable margin last November. I was excited to hear McNerney give the Democratic national radio address last month, and I was just elated to see McNerney sworn in with the rest of the Democratic majority just eighteen days ago. Everything seemed so great…

Until I saw THIS! From the Contra Costa Times:

“Why would you reward someone who broke the law? It doesn’t make sense,” says the flier, which McNerney supporters uploaded this week to the Calitics and Say No To Pombo blogs. “But that’s what Jerry McNerney wants to do. He wants to reward illegal aliens with Social Security benefits, even though they entered our country illegally.”

According to the flier, which cites an August 2006 newspaper story on the U.S. Senate’s bipartisan immigration-reform plan, the plan McNerney supports would jeopardize Social Security’s future. “If Jerry McNerney wants to let illegal aliens get Social Security, what other ideas does he have to encourage illegal aliens to break our laws?” it asks.

Already, the NRCC is back in full gear… But do they also have a candidate in mind?
From the SF Chronicle:

“There’s no way the Republicans are going to concede that seat,” said Assemblyman Guy Houston, R-San Ramon, whose district has some overlap with McNerney’s 11th Congressional District, which cuts across parts of Alameda, Contra Costa, Santa Clara and San Joaquin counties.

Houston, who is contemplating a challenge against McNerney in 2008, will be in Washington next month to talk to GOP leaders. Pombo, 46, a Tracy cattle rancher who was chairman of the House Resources Committee when he was defeated in November, has not ruled out running again.

From what I am hearing now, Houston may be a formidable opponent. He already represents many of the CA-11 voters in the State Assembly. The Republicans are already starting to cheer him on. I’ve heard that Houston sells himself as a reasonable “moderate”, though I think his voting record says something else. Oh yes, and voters in this swing district will be voting for President in 2008!

So what does this all mean for Jerry McNerney? Well, I’m hoping that all this motivates him and the Bay Area activists to work hard to get him reelected…
And hopefully, just as hard as they worked to get him elected last year! This is a purple seat that is fast trending blue, so it’s not as if Republicans have that much of an advantage in this region. This time last year, people told us that Pombo could not be taken down. Now, these same folks are telling us that McNerney cannot survive next year. All we need to do is keep up the grassroots activism, and encourage McNerney to keep in touch with his district, and I think we shouldn’t have a problem keeping CA-11 blue!

(Cross-posted at Calitics, and at and at my blog)

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.

District	Candidate	Spent	DCCC IEs	Other IEs	Incumbent	Spent	NRCC IEs	Other IEs	Victory Margin
AZ-01	Simon	$1.5M	(none)	$128k	Renzi	$2.22M	$24k	$21k	R+8
CA-04	Brown	$1.65M	(none)	$53k	Doolittle	$2.35M	$356k	$10k	R+3
CO-04	Paccione	$1.93M	$348k	$237k	Musgrave	$3.18M	$1.81M	$16k	R+2
CT-04	Farrell	$2.94M	$1.64M	$183k	Shays	$3.72M	$1.66M	$2k	R+3
FL-08	Stuart	$992k	(none)	$5k	Keller	$1.66M	(none)	$102k	R+7
IL-10	Seals	$1.85M	$158k	$25k	Kirk	$3.48M	(none)	(none)	R+7
IL-11	Pavich	$526k	(none)	(none)	Weller	$1.84M	(none)	(none)	R+10
IN-03	Hayhurst	$691k	(none)	(none)	Souder	$634k	$225k	$1k	R+8
KY-02	Weaver	$878k	$331k	$104k	Lewis	$1.96M	$42k	$10k	R+11
KY-04	Lucas	$1.47M	$2.71M	$10k	Davis	$3.87M	$2.31M	$13k	R+8
MI-08	Marcinkowski	$551k	(none)	(none)	Rogers	$1.85M	(none)	$8k	R+12
MI-09	Skinner	$384k	(none)	(none)	Knollenberg	$2.78M	(none)	$3k	R+5
NC-08	Kissell	$683k	(none)	$200k	Hayes	$2.37M	(none)	$8k	R+0
NE-01	Moul	$979k	(none)	(none)	Fortenberry	$1.12M	(none)	$4k	R+17
NE-02	Esch	$411k	(none)	(none)	Terry	$962k	(none)	$1k	R+9
NJ-07	Stender	$1.89M	$103k	$3k	Ferguson	$2.92M	$48k	$16k	R+1
NM-01	Madrid	$3.32M	$2M	$1.17M	Wilson	$4.66M	$2.03M	$831k	R+1
NV-03	Hafen	$1.5M	$308k	$1.14M	Porter	$2.99M	$476k	$2k	R+2
NY-03	Mejias	$908k	(none)	(none)	King	$2.06M	(none)	$1k	R+12
NY-25	Maffei	$912k	$446k	$5k	Walsh	$1.77M	$375k	$51k	R+2
NY-26	Davis	$2.37M	$423k	$248k	Reynolds	$5.2M	$1.03M*	$32k	R+4
NY-29	Massa	$1.44M	(none)	$144k	Kuhl	$1.46M	$233k	$5k	R+4
OH-01	Cranley	$2M	$1.28M	$699k	Chabot	$2.95M	$1.46M	$21k	R+5
OH-02	Wulsin	$1.02M	(none)	$237k**	Schmidt	$750k	$333k	?	R+1
OH-12	Shamansky	$1.64M	(none)	$3k	Tiberi	$2.97M	(none)	(none)	R+15
OH-15	Kilroy	$2.68M	$1.62M	$1.35M	Pryce	$4.63M	$1.81M	$82k	R+0
PA-06	Murphy	$4.04M	$3.01M	$222k	Gerlach	$3.46M	$3.89M	$52k	R+1
PA-15	Dertinger	$88k	(none)	(none)	Dent	$1.26M	(none)	(none)	R+10
VA-02	Kellam	$1.59M	$1.16M	$719k	Drake	$2.32M	$1.36M	$15k	R+3
VA-10	Feder	$1.54M	(none)	(none)	Wolf	$1.72M	(none)	$2k	R+16
WA-05	Goldmark	$1.15M	$321k	(none)	McMorris	$1.84M	(none)	$6k	R+12
WA-08	Burner	$2.98M	$2.02M	$727k	Reichert	$2.98M	$2.36M	$22k	R+3
WV-02	Callaghan	$614k	(none)	(none)	Capito	$3.07M	$25k	(none)	R+14
WY-AL	Trauner	$927k	(none)	(none)	Cubin	$1.25M	$249k	$64k	R+0
Total		$50.1M	$17.9M	$7.6M		$81.6M	$22.1M	$1.4M

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.

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:

District	Candidate	Spent	DCCC IEs	Other IEs	Incumbent	Spent	NRCC IEs	Other IEs
AZ-05	Mitchell	$1.89M	$2.12M	$1.02M	Hayworth	$2.94M	$2.25M	$7k
CA-11	McNerney	$2.34M	$216k	$1.1M	Pombo	$4.51M	$1.43M	$18k
CT-02	Courtney	$2.37M	$2.07M	$1k	Simmons	$3.09M	$2.74M	$14k
CT-05	Murphy	$2.44M	$2.08M	$975k	Johnson	$4.98M	$1.88M	$456k
FL-22	Klein	$4.14M	$2.31M	$25k	Shaw	$5.19M	$3.35M	$217k
IN-02	Donnelly	$1.49M	$918k	$355k	Chocola	$3.39M	$383k	$43k
IN-08	Ellsworth	$1.72M	$2.21M	$166k	Hostettler	$530k	$1.87M	$21k
IN-09	Hill	$1.86M	$3.08M	$75k	Sodrel	$2.64M	$3.25M	$69k
IA-02	Loebsack	$443k	(none)	(none)	Leach	$519k	$21k	(none)
KS-02	Boyda	$655k	$652k	(none)	Ryun	$1.03M	$272k	(none)
KY-03	Yarmuth	$2.2M	$321k	$5k	Northup	$3.4M	$248k	$1.01M
MN-01	Walz	$1.23M	$371k	$722k	Gutknecht	$1.69M	$409k	$22k
NC-11	Shuler	$1.75M	$171k	$267k	Taylor	$4.11M	$1.54M	$19k
NH-01	Shea-Porter	$286k	(none)	(none)	Bradley	$856k	$21k	(none)
NH-02	Hodes	$1.47M	$1.12M	$198k	Bass	$1.21M	$472k	$24k
NY-19	Hall	$1.57M	(none)	$5k	Kelly	$2.46M	$19k	(none)
NY-20	Gillibrand	$2.47M	$789k	$333k	Sweeney	$3.38M	$592k	(none)
PA-04	Altmire	$1M	$399k	$739k	Hart	$2.17M	$619k	$19k
PA-07	Sestak	$2.92M	$1.93M	$277k	Weldon	$2.89M	$3.56M	$13k
PA-08	Murphy	$2.35M	$1.72M	$189k	Fitzpatrick	$3.13M	$3.62M	$11k
PA-10	Carney	$1.51M	$1.11M	$683k	Sherwood	$2.27M	$1.51M	$10k
Total		$38.1M	$23.6M	$7.1M		$56.4M	$30.1M	$2M

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 DCCC has recently released some notes indicating that they plan on targeting Rep. Vito Fossella (NY-13), my favorite candidate for retirement, rather hard in his quest for a seventh term in 2008.  This from their press release on Jan 12, 2006;

The 2006 cycle proved that ethics matters to average voters. While there were several Republicans defeated this past cycle as a direct result of their ethical lapses, a handful returned to Washington and should be considered among the most vulnerable.

We will aggressively work in districts targeting ethically challenged incumbents like Tim Murphy (PA-18), Gary Miller (CA-42), Rick Renzi (AZ-01), John Doolittle (CA-04), Jerry Lewis (CA-41) and Vito Fossella (NY-13).

First off, if this is an indication of how Rep. Chris Van Hollen will lead the DCCC efforts to pick up more seats in 2008, then by all means my enthusiasm is going to be hard to keep subdued.  However I, like many of us have been burnt by the DCCC in the past, so I am not jumping into this new relationship naively thinking things will be different this time.  In 2004 the DCCC or some individuals associated with the group lead our Democratic candidate Frank Barbaro to believe that they were ready to interject some money into the race.  That money was always just around the corner.  They just toyed with our emotions for a bit and eventually stood us up.  If that was heartbreaking then 2006 just incensed us and lead many to swear off dancing with the DCCC ever again.  After many of the local officials slowly backed out of the race, Stephen Harrison a local lawyer stepped up to take on Rep. Fossella and walked into the nomination due to his fighting spirit.  After being vetted by the local party and being given the nod we find out that the DCCC decided to involve itself, backing a city council member who lived outside the district, in March just eight months before the election. 

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), which bankrolls House races, yesterday said it would embrace de Blasio’s candidacy. (Staten Island Advance)

De Blasio, whom was being backed by Rep. Rangel, eventually backed out after a month of indecision, leaving Harrison to focus on Rep. Fossella.  One of the bigger problems with this fiasco is that New York state has a late September primary.  This makes a divisive primary an ineffective spring board to then take on a Republican incumbent in under two months.

Curiously though it wasn’t until long after this past November that I came across this piece in the New York Sun from June 28, 2005;

New York Democrats are not alone in their efforts to win the Fossella seat. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has already started priming the 13th Congressional District for 2006.

SNIP

Over Memorial Day weekend, it paid for radio advertisements attacking Mr. Fossella’s vote against a measure that would have expanded Tricare, the military health-insurance program.

SNIP

The organization also commissioned a poll that matched Mr. Fossella with three potential Democratic challengers: City Council Member Michael McMahon, Assemblyman Michael Cusick, and state Senator Diane Savino.

SNIP

In addition to the Congressional Campaign Committee’s efforts, the Seattle-based Democratic Advancement Political Action Committee, a group created in 2002 to raise money for Democratic candidates nationwide, plans to organize grassroots field operations once a Democratic candidate is chosen.

I am bewildered as to where all of this is coming from.  DCCC funded polling?  DCCC funded radio advertising?  Organizing grassroots field operations?  Not surprisingly after the DCCC slumped away from the district eleven months later, no polling was done by the DCCC even though indications were that Fossella had internal polling showing him in trouble.  No radio ads were purchased by the DCCC.  No grassroots field operations were established.  Harrison went on to give Fossella the most competitive race yet, holding him to 57-43 (59-41 in 2004), being outspent by a margin of 13:1. 

And to make this flirtation worse, it was just back in June 2006, after the DCCC backed out of the race, that they put out a press release attacking three Republicans for their unethical lavish travels; Rep. Pombo (since defeated), Rep. Sweeney (since defeated) and Rep. Fossella.  We have heard the story before.

So it is not without some trepidation that I re-read that DCCC statement that they will be going after Fossella in 2008.  But not all developments are worrisome.  On December 18, 2006 I suggested that Rep. Fossella should be moved to new committees, instead of continually rewarding him with seats on both the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and the House Committee on Financial Services.  The reasoning is obvious;

The side benefit, and reason for suggesting these moves is that Rep. Fossella receives large amounts of financial support from the industries that benefit from limited oversight by these two committees; financial institutions and real estate/housing. Fossella’s largest sector donations come from the Finance, Insurance and Real Estate sector, a total of nearly $1.5 million in donations and influence, $358,790 of that just in the last election cycle.

2004-06 Donors (via Opensecrets.org)
1. Securities & Investment: $109,500
3. Real Estate: $86,050
4. Insurance: $60,250
5. Health Professionals: $52,700
7. Accountants: $37,400
9. Commercial Banks: $33,790

So it was with renewed excitement, and new found ability to control the minds of our new Democratic majority leaders, that news broke that Fossella was forced to give up one of his committee assignments.  In the end he choose to leave the House Committee on Financial Services, the largest sector donor to his campaigns.  It also made me appear to know what I was talking about back in December;

Should Fossella get moved from one of his committees he served on last term (04-06) consider that a good sign that this seat is on the DCCC’s list in 08 and that they are going to start the race early.

The actual implications of both of these developments will be more apparent next year, however right now we can see that Fossella’s fund raising abilities should be drastically impacted.  Without some unforeseen major fund raising prowess, Fossella could have trouble cracking $1 million.  To make matters worse for him, he ended his 2006 campaign over $200,000 in debt.  From what I have seen this campaign debt is a first for Fossella, who tends to carry over a nice chunk of cash meaning Democrats typically start out well behind.

So is this seat really in play or are we just setting ourselves up to be stood up and heart broken by the DCCC once again?  That answer will no doubt have a lot to do with who jumps into this race and how effective they are at early fund raising and early volunteer support.  You can follow speculation at 2008 Race Tracker.  However, if Fossella is one of the most ethically challenged (=corrupt) Republicans, can the DCCC really walk away from this district again? 

http://ny13.blogspot…

(The game is afoot. Can we snatch another Texas seat in time for Christmas? Ciro would have faced a very difficult task mobilizing voters with his limited campaign and financial infrastructure, so the DCCC entering the fray is a very welcome development here. Stay tuned. – promoted by James L.)

The DCCC is on the ground in TX-23. They have made amazing progress in getting Democrat Ciro Rodriguez to let them bring the game on for this short election period seeing as he’s low on cash and institutional support. In other terms, Ciro has actually been on the phone doing call time which in itself is short of a miracle, just to put it in perspective.

Meghan Gaffney as some will remember from Paul Hackett’s race in OH-02 is there now as well as Adrian Saenz, the DCCC’s National Field Director (who if I’m not mistaken is from San Antonio as it is).

There is a poll in the field right now to determine where things stand on that front.

The election date cannot be set earlier than this Friday from what we’ve been told, though there is an expectation that Gov. Perry will do so then. There is an open state house seat in Texas which also has to have an election date set – a dead Republican incumbent beat her Democratic opponent on Nov 7th creating a vacancy which forces an open special election in HD-29 near Houston. That race is discussed in this post.