Swing State Project

(Great, great stuff. – promoted by James L.)

Cross-posted from MN Campaign Report and Big Orange at DavidNYC’s request – hope it’s up to snuff!

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.

Earlier in the day, Markos billed the likely matchup between Maine’s Rep. Tom Allen (D) and Susan Collins (R) for control of her Senate seat in 2008 as a “battle of the titans”, which leads me to ask: does Allen really have what it takes to win this thing?

Now, I’m not trying to say that Allen is a weak candidate.  In a state with only two House districts, it’s clear that Allen would be a fairly serious threat to an entrenched Collins.  But with a Senator as popular as Collins (who enjoys a whopping 73% approval last November, according to the latest SUSA tracking poll in November), Allen will have to execute a perfect campaign in order to win.

Let’s check his track record as of late.  Here’s how he fared in 2006, according to CNN:

Allen (D): 61
Curley (R): 31
Kamilewicz (I): 8

And here’s his 2004 performance:

Allen (D): 60
Summers (R): 40

Allen’s district has a PVI of D+6.2.  His House colleague, Democrat Mike Michaud, occupies a seat that’s a shade less Democratic at D+3.5.  In his sophomore re-election bid in 2004, he won by a margin of 58-39, a margin very similar to Allen’s, who had been serving since 1998 by this point.  In 2006, Michaud crushed his Republican opponent by a 70-30 margin.

Now, there are a lot of dynamics left unstated here: Kamilewicz, his 2006 third-party opponent, ran a peace campaign that probably cut into his left flank, although it only cost a mere $42,000.  And while Allen enjoyed a 4-1 spending advantage over Republican Darlene Curley in 2006, he didn’t exactly saturate the market with his total expenditures of $650,000.  But the point I’m trying to make is this: winning with 60%, especially in a Democratic year such as 2006, doesn’t leave me feeling overwhelmed.

Does anyone have a better sense as to why Allen hasn’t been able to peak above 60% since 2002?

From Taegan Goddard’s Political Wire:

“Alan Schlesinger — the Republican who got 10 percent in last year’s Connecticut Senate race against independent Joe Lieberman and Democratic flash-in-the-pan Ned Lamont — is sniffing a possible congressional bid for the seat of new U.S. Rep. Ron Klein (D-FL),” according to the Palm Beach Post. “Schlesinger says he’s been spending a few months a year in Palm Beach County for about 20 years and has family here. He recently spoke to the Boca Raton Republican Club.”

“The GOP wants to retake the marginally Republican seat Klein won from 26-year Republican incumbent Clay Shaw last year. But big-name local Rs have so far stayed on the sidelines.”

This one gives me the giggles.  I think we would all warmly welcome the return of Alan Gold, no?

This is a subject on which I have done a lot of research on, and I think that I have found a new method of winning in the South. Someone on Daily Kos pointed out that former Nebraska U.S. Senator Jim Exxon was an Economic Populist, but very socially conservative. I find that this is a very good point, because Nebraska is highly rural, and Socially Conservative, much like many Southern states, and I believe it is a good example for what I am trying to push for.

I won’t beat around the bush, but, members of this organization should know I’m a more socially conservative Democrat, so I may see things differently on some issues than you do. I will, however, do my best not to offend anyone in the least.

But, from my own studies of the South, and many rural areas, many people who haven’t voted for Democrats in years, still tend to be populists, it has surprised me over and over and over and over again. Why don’t they vote for Democrats. Well the most common answer was that they weren’t perceived as “Christian” in their values or position as the other guy. After that came, “I didn’t feel like I could connect with him, like he was my friend”, then, “Since both candidates didn’t have an ounce of populism in them, I voted for the more Socially conservative candidate.” All of those statements are true, gotten from overwhelmingly white, and 72% pro-Bush in 2004, East Carroll Parish, where I have several Great-Grandparents, and a place that I visit often, and occasionally deliver a sermon in my great-grandfather’s church.

Quite the opposite of what many think, these Religious Conservatives are actually
Populist, why. Well as someone who has always liked talking and having the spotlight, I also write a bunch of Sermons, many of which I never get a chance to tell anybody, some which I get to do at a small church, a lot of the time my great grandfathers. I can tell you right know, the Bible contains a great deal of economically populist messages, and rural social conservatives do believe these ideals, a lot of them do, far more than most people probably think. Some of the only problems are how Republicans have demonized taxation and Government. That’s why we need what I like to call “Your Friendly Neighborhood Democrat”. The charismatic Democrat who can create what many bloggers have so aptly called ‘a narrative’ about middle class and lower class families struggling to make it, to bring emotion and personal appeals into. I do this regularly in my sometimes rather blatantly political sermons.

Conservatives have gotten many of them thinking Democrats what to take your tax money and give it to poor worthless blacks and minorities, when really, Southern states are the poorest, and rural whites make up a majority of their percentage of the population on welfare. A Democrat needs to bring that back into perspective, to make it to where when someone mentions the Democratic party, that person’s first though is, ‘my party, the common man’s party’, and not, ‘the pro-gay, pro-abortion, Minority party’. That first thought, that’s what most people used to think about the Democratic party into the South before the Republican party, (with much effort), changed the narrative to the latter.

In my opinion the South is not lost at all, but Democrats must adjust. I still maintain that the Democratic Party at large needs to remain fairly socially liberal, (and must start acting more Economically Liberal), but in the South the party needs to become more socially conservative, (in many instances far more than I am). Rural areas that were once the bastion of the Democratic party have now become the opposite for the Republican party, I am personally sure that the key to success is to take back those areas, or come close. In Georgia, many Rural counties where a majority of registered voters were Democrats, Bush got close to 60%, indicating major crossover support due to social issues, and social issues alone.

To give you some more background on this, East Carroll parish is where Oak Grove and multiple other small towns lie. I travel the Parish often, and have found Economic populism, or semi-economic populism still common. People just don’t believe Democrats are the Party to do it, but for them neither are the Republicans.

This brings me up to my second subject; the economic conservatism of elected Southern Democrats. Many Southern Democrats like: Gene Taylor, Lincoln Davis, John Tanner, Mary Landrieu, Blanche Lincoln, Bud Cramer, Mike McIntyre, and Allen Boyd, (who actually signed the Republican proposal to privatize Social Security), are all extremely conservative on Economic Issues. They all also represent districts that, on a presidential level, mostly support Republicans. When a fundamentalist Christian voter who is open to economic is voting in a tough election between a very conservative Democrat and Republican, he’ll most likely choose the Republican because he is most likely the most conservative of the two candidates when it comes to Social issues. Why does he vote this way, why because there’s not a charisma or Economic populism in the Democrats’ body.

Charisma is key! New Democrats will have to use personal appeals, like Republicans, to move voters with a touching narrative. As a writer, I find this personally very easy, and during some sermons on the problems and tough lives of many poor working Americans, my eyes have started watering, because I know what it’s like to grow up poor. New Democrats will have to do the same. Voters have to be moved, not won over because you support massive tax cuts for the rich, or oppose Gay Marriage.

I’d like to know where many of you stand on this issue, maybe you have a personal opinion, or anecdote to share that relates to it. Let’s get into it, as this is the first major post of the Southern Democrats Club.

To tie up a few things, when I said, ‘the pro-gay, pro-abortion, Minority party’, I was not being racist; I was just purveying the reader a very, very, scarily accurate portrayal of a rural conservative white’s thoughts on the Democratic party. Many poor rural people indeed don’t even like the party they always vote for. They still distrust it as the party of the rich, and big business, many still have a deep affinity for the Democratic party too, they just don’t feel like they can vote for it anymore. But, the right type of Democrat can win these voters once again. Second, I will write you all an example of a personal narrative in my next post.

Please vote in the poll so I can get an idea of how many people read this, and please, please, post your thoughts and vocal agreements or disagreements with my thinking.

Politics, shmolitics.  Before I signed on to the Swing State Project, my previous writing experience consisted almost entirely of my time spent as a music critic for an alternative weekly paper.  And while I can say that I’ve very much enjoyed the jump from music to politics, the urge to consume and discuss new and old albums is impossible to kick.  So, I wanna know: what albums have you been enjoying lately?  Don’t be a stranger now.

Here’s what I’ve been listening to in the past seven days:

Billy Bragg & Wilco – “Mermaid Avenue” (1998, Elektra)
Elastica – s/t (1995, Deceptive)
Four Tops – “The Ultimate Collection” (1997, Motown)
The Kinks – “Face to Face” (1966, Pye/Reprise, r: 2004, Castle)
The Posies – “Failure” (1988, Popllama)
The Shins – “Wincing The Night Away” (2007, Sub Pop)
The Wailers – “Livewire!!! [’65-67]” (1999, Norton)

( – promoted by DavidNYC)

Slow week here at the SSP – I’ve been utterly slammed with work lately. Though, good news: I was just admitted to the bar this week. Not the good kind of bar, but at least the kind that helps me earn a living.

What have you been up to?

UPDATE: Boxer running again in 2010. Guess you can never start too early.

The Hill published an article highlighting some of the fundraising efforts of freshmen Democrats in the House.  Apparently, many are doing quite well.  David Loebsack (IA-02) has raised about $71,000.  Kirsten Gillebrand (NY-20) has raised $65,000 in PAC money alone.  Earl Perlmutter (CO-07) has raised $79,000.  Charlie Wilson (OH-06) has raised $34,000.  Paul Hodes has raised $35,000.  Jason Altmire (PA-04) and Patrick Murphy (PA-08) have both raised $50,000 in PAC money alone.  Zack Space (OH-18) and Steven Kagen (WI-08) have both raised $35,000 in PAC money.

As far as simple financial numbers go, this is good news.  All of these candidates are vulnerable to some degree.  So, if all of these House members are already off to good starts, they may be able to force out potentially strong challenges early on.

But the article also has some worrying relevations.  For one thing, Nancy Boyda (KS-02) has raised only $13,000.  Considering the presidential vote in her district (Bush won it by 20 points), Boyda is probably one of our top five most vulnerable Democrats.  Plus, she will not have Sebelius’ coattails helping her and will instead have to contend with the Republican tide at the top of the ticket from the eventual Republican nominee and Senator Pat Roberts. Finally, she will possibly face a rematch against Jim Ryun. More over the flip…

However, the thing that is more disappointing to me than Boyda’s numbers (it’s early, give her some time) is where the other candidates are getting there money.  First, relying heavily on PAC money does not give the best image.  But beyond that, it’s a question of which PACs they’re getting donations from.

Both Gillebrand and Perlmutter have taken money from Altria, which represents the makers of Marlboro cigarettes. Loebsack and Perlmutter have received contributions from the American Bankers Association PAC while Perlmutter also has donations from Comcast and JP Morgan and Loebsack has donations from the American Association of Realtors.

It’s unsettling to see any elected officials taking money from cigarette makers.  It’s worse to see Democrats, liberal Democrats at that, doing that.  And while Comcast, et al. aren’t the scourge of Satan, I also don’t like the image of elected Democrats at their beg and call.

http://www.thehill.c…

My suggestion for anyone else who feels the way I do, is to donate through the Netroots and other liberal PACs like MoveOn and Democracy for America.  The more candidates and elected officials can get from the Netroots, the less they have to rely on PACs whose goals are sometimes/often/always contrary to the goals of progressives/working people/middle class/etc.

One should also note that Netroots heroes Jerry McNerney (CA-11), Carol Shea-Porter (NH-01), John Yarmuth (KY-03), Joe Sestak (PA-07), John Hall (NY-19), and Tim Walz (MN-01) are not mentioned in the article.  We need to act now to keep these people a)in Congress by making sure they have adequate resources to be re-elected and b)from becoming corrupted by negative interests.

Here’s the third Craig Johnson (D-WFP) for State Senate TV commercial.  Craig is running in a Feb 6 special election for an open New York State Senate seat in northwestern Nassau County.

Eliot Spitzer’s ad man Jimmy Siegel directed the ad; you can see Siegel’s first two ads for the Johnson campaign here and here.

In the ad, titled “How to Save,” five accountants from the Seventh Senate District take O’Connell to task for her record of raising taxes.

Be sure to read about the O’Connell audit scandal and sign up to be part of the Johnson campaign GOTV push!

6 days until Election Day!

Volunteer | Donate

The ad features Certified Public Accountants Ellyn Sosin and Lenny Kreigel of New Hyde Park, Mitch Beckerman of Great Neck, Larry Greenstein of Port Washington and Accountant Stephen Goodman of Great Neck.

Here’s the full script:

TITLE: “How to Save”

TEXT:
Here’s what you need to know to save on taxes this year.

Maureen O’Connell voted to raise taxes and fees over 80 times–a product of the same Republican machine that almost brought Nassau County to its knees.

It might have happened, if Craig Johnson hadn’t jumped in, working with Tom Suozzi to create a remarkable financial turnaround.

Bringing Nassau back to fiscal health.

So, on February 6, you can vote for someone who raises taxes–

Or, vote for someone who will lower them.

SUPER: Vote Craig Johnson for State Senate.

Special Election, February 6th.

6 days until Election Day!

Volunteer | Donate

Newsday, a leading Long Island paper, has delivered a major endorsement to Craig Johnson (D-WFP).  This is a big endorsement because Newsday is widely read and respected, and it’s the only daily on Long Island, so it’ll get in the hands of the people most likely to vote on their own in the special.  Newsday boils it down to this: “Newsday endorses Johnson, who was willing to take a tough vote as a Nassau legislator and will do so again in Albany.”

Craig Johnson is running in a Feb 6 special election for an open New York State Senate seat in northwestern Nassau County.

Here’s another key quote on Craig:

“In the end, the choice should go to the candidate not with the most powerful backers – including admirable ones like Spitzer – but the one with the best skills, experience and policies. That is Johnson.”

and I thought this one on O’Connell was telling:

“[i]n 2003, this page called one of her Assembly votes on the budget a profile in cowardice and cynicism. She tried to have her cake, by overturning a veto of school-aid cuts, and eat it too, by not being willing to pay for it with an income-tax surcharge.”

6 days until Election Day!

See the press release and more endorsements at the WFP Blog.

Volunteer | Donate

Since the buzz word of the House 2008 picture this week is “rematch” (what with ex-Reps. Bradley and Ryun agitating for another run), here’s something to chew on–according to the Hotline, since 1998 “there are have been nearly 200 House rematches, with just 10 (six last cycle) being successful”.  In a separate post, Hotline reports that Richard Pombo (CA-11) may be itching for a rematch against Rep. Jerry McNerney in 2008.  Josh Kraushaar notes:

By choosing to run again, GOPers are making the races a choice between candidates instead of a referendum on the incumbent’s record. That could be the best scenario the DCCC could ask for in these tough races.

And the track record for repeat attempts against the same opponent doesn’t suggest otherwise, either.

Two other rematches may be in the works, as well, according to the Hotline’s subscription-only section: unsurprisingly, former State Rep. Joe Negron (R) will take on Rep. Tim Mahoney (FL-16) once again, after falling short by 2 points in 2006 while carrying the burden of being listed as Mark Foley on the actual ballot.  Additionally, Idaho’s Larry Grant may be “leaning toward” a rematch against Bill “Brain Fade” Sali in ID-01.  Of all of these match-ups, Negron’s may prove to be the most worthwhile, as he ran an effective campaign with the deck stacked so heavily against him.  Still, with Mahoney’s self-funding capability, incumbency advantage, and moderate profile, I’d much rather be us than them.