A Primary Loss Does Not Equate a Lost Cause

By Nathan L. Gonzales

Democrats are reveling in the primary losses of candidates preferred by the National Republican Congressional Committee in the last couple of weeks. But they only have to look back four years within their own caucus to see that upset primary winners can get elected to Congress.

In Idaho’s 1st district, Iraq war veteran Vaughn Ward had reached the top level of the NRCC’s “Young Guns” program and had a significant lead heading into the May 25 primary. But he made a series of serious missteps in the final days and lost to state Rep. Raul Labrador, 48 percent to 39 percent.

Ward’s “loss calls into question the competence of the NRCC’s political skills,” the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee charged in a press release, which noted other Republican establishment candidates who have lost in primaries this year. But that doesn’t mean Republicans can’t win in the Idaho district or elsewhere.

Back in 2006, there were several instances where House Democrats’ top recruits lost in the primary, yet the party still picked up the seat in that fall’s Democratic wave election.

In California’s 11th district, Navy veteran and former airline pilot Steve Filson was one of 22 initial challengers on the DCCC’s “Red to Blue” program, the Democratic prototype for the GOP’s Young Guns program.

Six weeks after being added to the list in 2006, Filson lost the Democratic primary in a dramatic fashion to wind turbine company executive Jerry McNerney, who took 53 percent to Filson’s 29 percent.

The DCCC went on to spend a meager $217,000 in the general election, but McNerney defeated GOP Rep. Richard Pombo, 53 percent to 47 percent. The challenger had considerable help from the Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund, the Sierra Club and other environmental groups.

McNerney wasn’t the only Democrat that cycle to defeat the establishment candidate in a primary and win the general election with little or no help from the national party.

In New Hampshire’s 1st district, social worker and community college instructor Carol Shea-Porter trounced state House Democratic leader Jim Craig, the national party’s preferred candidate, by a whopping 20 points in the September primary.

The DCCC didn’t spend a dime on independent expenditures in the general election as Shea-Porter defeated then-Rep. Jeb Bradley (R) 51 percent to 49 percent in November.

In New York’s 19th district, attorney Judy Aydelott was the early frontrunner for the Democratic nomination in 2006, but she lost the primary, 50 percent to 27 percent, to former 1970s band Orleans frontman John Hall. The DCCC didn’t spend any money in the general election, and Hall defeated Rep. Sue Kelly (R) by 2 points.

These Democratic examples from 2006 do not necessarily mean that Labrador will defeat Rep. Walt Minnick (D) in Idaho or that Keith Rothfus, another upset GOP primary winner, will unseat Rep. Jason Altmire (D) in Pennsylvania’s 4th district. But with the national political climate trending in their favor, it is unwise to dismiss these GOP nominees out of hand, according to one veteran Democratic consultant.

“We are in denial,” according to the Democratic source, who is concerned about a prevailing “arrogance” among party operatives. The political winds working against the party in power can be enough to help flawed nominees win.

In Kentucky’s 3rd district in 2006, newspaper columnist John Yarmuth (D) wasn’t an upset primary winner, but Republicans believed they drew the Democratic candidate with the most baggage.

Iraq war veteran Andrew Horne (D) generated significant attention for being one of many veterans running for Congress that cycle, but Yarmuth won the primary, 54 percent to 32 percent.

“We were concerned with Horne because of his military background and lack of a voting record,” said Terry Carmack, then-Rep. Anne Northup’s (R) chief of staff at the time. “As it turns out, it didn’t matter because the campaign became a referendum on George Bush.”

Yarmuth defeated Northup by 3 points in the general election.

Sometimes strategists at the campaign committees may have picked the wrong horse in the beginning or the establishment candidate simply was not the best general election nominee.

In the case of Ohio’s 18th district, Chillicothe Mayor Joe Sulzer was supposed to be the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination in 2006 even though Republicans were eager to run against him because of his personal baggage. Attorney Zack Space ended up winning the nomination with 39 percent, while Sulzer finished third with 24 percent.

Space was the less experienced politician but had a sufficient clean slate compared to embattled then-Rep. Bob Ney (R), his initial opponent, and then-state Sen. Joy Padgett (R) after Ney dropped out and then finally resigned.

Overall, instant, post-primary analysis can be dangerous when looking too far ahead to the general election. There are plenty of examples to show that candidates can win primaries and general elections without the support of the national party, particularly with the wind at their backs.


This story first appeared in Roll Call and CQPolitics.com on June 1, 2010. 2010 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

DISCLOSE Act Would Alter Committees’ IEs

By Nathan L. Gonzales

Democrats have proposed a new campaign finance reform bill to counter a controversial Supreme Court decision that enhanced the power of outside groups to run campaign ads, but a little-publicized provision in the legislation would dramatically alter how parties interact with candidates and give the campaign committees broad flexibility in how they handle independent expenditures.

According to attorneys on both sides of the aisle, the proposed bill would likely do away with the biennial tradition of the four House and Senate campaign committees sending chosen staff members to the other side of “the wall” — where they spend millions on campaign communication, independent of coordination with the committees and candidates.

The key section of the Senate version of the DISCLOSE Act, Title 1, Sec. 104 (b), redefines the conduct test for coordination.

“The direct costs incurred by a political committee of a political party for a communication made in connection with the campaign of a candidate for Federal office shall not be subject to the limitations contained in paragraphs (2) and (3) unless the communication is controlled by, or made at the direction of, the candidate or an authorized committee of the candidate,” according to the proposed bill.

The House version, co-sponsored by Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Chris Van Hollen (Md.), contains a similar provision.

Requiring “control or direction” by a candidate is a significantly higher standard for coordination. Under the current law, the campaign committees set up separate independent expenditure offices, and the strategists picked to run them, who have spent the past 18 months talking about races within the walls of the committee, are no longer allowed to discuss the races with their colleagues on the other side of the wall.

Instead, the new bill would do away with the status quo and allow the campaign committees to have conversations with candidates about ads and strategy as long as the candidates weren’t controlling or directing party spending, according to multiple campaign finance attorneys.

“Parties never should have been subject to the tighter coordination rules passed in 2003,” Democratic attorney Marc Elias explained about the unintended consequences of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. “Ads that are sponsored by parties were never a target. This would restore the law back to prior to McCain-Feingold.”

Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) is a co-sponsor of the Senate version of the bill.

According to multiple attorneys interviewed for this story, the Federal Election Commission wrongly lumped spending by parties with spending by other outside groups, giving the campaign committees the same level of noncommunication with candidates as a random 527 group.

Even though the campaign committees are already setting up their independent expenditure efforts for the November elections, the staffers could return to the other side of the wall 30 days after the DISCLOSE Act is enacted.

Under the proposed legislation, “party communication will not be treated as a contribution unless directed or controlled by the candidate,” according to one Democratic attorney. Coordinated contribution limits are very low, relative to the overall expense of a campaign.

In 2008, the Democratic committees spent $1.7 million in coordinated money compared with $81.6 million in independent expenditures. The Republican committees spent $3.4 million in coordinated money and $31 million in independent expenditures, according to the Campaign Finance Institute.

Party strategists at the campaign committees are cautious and restrained in their excitement about the opportunity to spend tens of millions of dollars and be able to work more closely with their candidates’ campaigns.

This potentially significant development is not promoted as one of the seven “major points” on discloseact.com, a website set up by Senate co-sponsors Feingold, Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), but it would have a tremendous impact on the campaign committees.

While attorneys believe the provision will revert the candidate/party communication back to before BCRA, the parties are still subject to hard-dollar contribution limits.

“The DISCLOSE Act allows more freedom for parties to interact with their candidates, but it does so while leaving the current soft-money restrictions intact,” Van Hollen spokesman Doug Thornell said.

In general, the DISCLOSE Act appears to be a way to enhance the parties’ ability to compete after the Supreme Court’s Citizens United v. FEC decision.

“It’s what you do to keep the parties relevant,” one GOP attorney said about the bill. The spending provision as well as the provision to give party committees the lowest unit rate for television ads (just like candidates get) are ways to level the playing field with corporations and other outside groups.

According to one GOP attorney, opponents of the Supreme Court’s decision are realizing that they will have a difficult time challenging the constitutional right of outside groups to spend money, so this bill is a response to free up the parties to compete.

This story first appeared in Roll Call on May 5, 2010. 2010 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Not All ‘On the Radar’ Candidates Measure Up

By Stuart Rothenberg

Two months before the 2008 elections, I wrote a column (Now It’s the DCCC That Is Swimming Against the Tide, Sept. 15, 2008) scolding the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee for putting third-tier races on its “Red to Blue” list of top challenger races and for adding some ridiculous races to its second-tier “Emerging Races” and third-tier “Races to Watch” lists.

If you recall, Red to Blue candidate Sam Bennett ended up losing to Rep. Charlie Dent (R-Pa.) by 17 points, while Judy Feder lost to Rep. Frank Wolf (R-Va.) by 20 points. Both Democrats did better than Josh Zeitz, who was added to the DCCC’s Races to Watch list after Labor Day and ended up losing to Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.) by only 34 points.

Now, more than six months before the midterm elections, it’s the National Republican Congressional Committee’s turn to push the envelope by adding campaigns that appear to have no chance of winning to its long-shot list of “On the Radar” contests.

Republican operatives are quick to point out that their third-tier “On the Radar” candidates need to meet only very basic goals — for example, build a website, have a Federal Election Commission reporting system in place, have available a very basic media package, etc. — and that candidates in this category don’t necessarily have a path to victory yet.

Some will win (and they will move up to “Contender” and possibly “Young Guns” level), while others may not ever get there.

Fair enough. But putting already credible candidates such as Kevin Yoder (Kan.), Jaime Herrera (Wash.), Jim Ward (Ariz.) and Bruce O’Donoghue (Fla.) on the same list with candidates who have virtually no chance of winning in November only leads to confusion.

What are some of the most obvious examples of On the Radar candidates who shouldn’t yet be on your radar?

Robert Gettemy is a businessman whose current project is 1M4JC.com (One Million for Jesus Christ), which sells T-shirts with the 1M4JC logo. His March 31 FEC report showed net receipts of $129,000 — and debt of $100,000, suggesting that he had raised a trivial amount of campaign cash other than from his own pocket. (T-shirt sales must be going well ...)

Gettemy is running against Rep. Dave Loebsack (D) in Iowa’s 2nd district, by far the most liberal district in the state. It gave President Barack Obama 60 percent of the vote in 2008 and Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) 55 percent four years earlier. Sure, Loebsack owes his election entirely to a huge Democratic wave in 2006, but that’s not enough reason to promote a GOP challenger who, at least right now, has no chance of winning.

Bobby Schilling owns Saint Giuseppe’s Pizza in Moline, Ill., and his campaign website notes that the restaurant is closed Sundays “in order to give more time off for their employees and spend more time with the family.”

Schilling, who is challenging Rep. Phil Hare (D) in Illinois’ 17th district, showed $162,000 raised through March 31, with just under $110,000 on hand. Obama carried the district with 56 percent, while Kerry won it with 51 percent in 2004.

There was a time when the heart of this district was represented by a Republican, Tom Railsback. But that was back in the 1970s. I don’t know whether Schilling will turn into a serious candidate, but currently, he isn’t even in the same room as the radar.

Jeffrey Reetz is On the Radar, too. Reetz owns 30 Pizza Hut restaurants in four states (I don’t know if he has a restaurant in Moline and competes with Saint Giuseppe’s Pizza). His website says that he has lived in Louisville “for a total of 12 years in the past 15 years,” a very strange grammatical construction that suggests that he hasn’t been living in the area recently.

Anyway, Reetz’s latest FEC report showed $178,000 raised for the cycle and a debt of $117,000, suggesting that he has largely bankrolled his effort and actually raised only about $60,000.

I’m quite confident that the NRCC understands that these kinds of challengers are a long way from threatening Democratic incumbents.

So what’s the point of putting them on a list?

“It allows the committee to take inventory of a campaign that might be the next Nancy Boyda or Carol Shea-Porter,” said one Republican insider, referencing two Democratic Congressional long shots who were elected in the wave of 2006, Boyda in Kansas and Shea-Porter in New Hampshire.

True, but the better answer probably is that it doesn’t cost the NRCC anything after all, and adding them to a list gives these long, long shots an opportunity to promote themselves to the local media and hype their campaigns with potential contributors.

In fact, Reetz had a note on the main page of his website noting that he is now On the Radar, while Schilling and Gettemy have posted press releases on their sites noting that the NRCC has put their campaigns On the Radar.

Right now, only 10 Republicans have achieved Young Guns status, with another 40 listed as Contenders. And some of those candidates on the Contender list are a stretch. Let’s just hope that the folks at the NRCC don’t feel compelled to move candidates up to more competitive categories just to pad their number of serious contests.

This column first appeared in Roll Call and on CQPolitics.com on April 27, 2010. 2010 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Can the GOP Afford a Wave?

By Nathan L. Gonzales

After big gubernatorial wins in Virginia and New Jersey last year and the possibility of picking up the late Sen. Edward Kennedy’s (D-Mass.) seat in today's special election, there’s no question that Republican spirits are high at the moment.

But the bank accounts at the GOP campaign committees are disproportionately low, and there is some nervousness among party operatives that they won’t have enough money to take advantage of a tremendous opportunity at the ballot box this fall.

Still, while Democrats may be banking on having their large cash advantage help insulate them from heavy House seat losses, there are some political climates that you can’t spend your way out of — a lesson that Republicans learned in 2006.

That cycle, when Republicans were in the majority, the National Republican Congressional Committee spent more than $83.5 million on independent expenditures compared with $64.1 million in spending by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

The spending discrepancy didn’t stop Democrats from winning 30 seats and taking control of the House in what became a national wave election. In 11 of the seats that flipped, the Republican incumbent outspent the Democratic challenger and the NRCC outspent the DCCC, but the Republicans still lost. And in two more GOP open seats, both the Republican nominee and the NRCC had the spending edge, but the Democrats still won.

But even when Republicans had the financial edge, they weren’t outspending Democrats by 2-to-1 or even 3-to-1, a prospect that the GOP could face this year.

This cycle, the NRCC had $4.3 million in the bank (and $2 million in debt) on Nov. 30, compared with the DCCC’s $15.3 million (and $2.7 million in debt). Year-end reports are due later this month.

Republicans are having a difficult time turning grass-roots conservative anger into campaign dollars. Multiple House GOP strategists expressed concern that the Republican National Committee — headed by headline-grabbing Chairman Michael Steele — won’t have the money that it normally invests in Congressional races in midterm elections.

“It is not lost on anyone that accomplishing our goal of retiring Nancy Pelosi as Speaker will require more assistance from House Republicans, as well as all of our donors and friends,” NRCC spokesman Paul Lindsay said. “With that support, we’re confident that we will close the gap in the coming months in order to keep Democrats accountable for their reckless agenda.”

At a briefing with reporters last month, DCCC Chairman Chris Van Hollen (Md.) pointed out that Republicans hardly have enough money to fully fund one top-tier House race, let alone their full slate of targets.

If the NRCC can’t raise enough money to fund targeted races, the RNC has traditionally been the place to look for a financial bailout in a midterm election. In 2006, the RNC spent about $25 million on Congressional races.

Only a portion of that money was transferred directly to the campaign committees and turned into television ads. More importantly, according to multiple GOP strategists, the RNC usually shoulders the burden for the “ground game” in competitive states, including funding absentee voter programs.

Even during the past three years that the GOP has spent in the Congressional minority, the RNC has maintained a cash advantage over the Democratic National Committee. But after spending more than $90 million last year, including heavy investments in the Virginia ($9 million) and New Jersey ($4 million) wins, the RNC showed a cash balance of just $8.7 million at the end of November. The DNC spent $71.6 million and had $13 million in the bank.

Even with an expected uptick in GOP fundraising, there is little doubt Democrats will have the financial edge this year.

But the question remains: How much will it matter?

In 2008, the DCCC spent a total of $75 million on IEs in 64 districts. The NRCC spent more than $21 million in 35 districts. Taking a closer look, the DCCC spent $1 million unanswered (the NRCC spent nothing) in 19 districts. Democrats won 15 of those races.

But that spending advantage was coupled with a favorable political climate. It’s unclear how much money it will take when Democratic candidates are running into a headwind, if not a wave.

“If I had to choose money or climate, it’s not even close,” according to one veteran Democratic strategist, who would choose a positive climate hands down.

Past election results show that challengers don’t have to equal incumbent spending, but multiple GOP House strategists don’t believe many of their candidates can withstand a 2-1 or 3-1 disadvantage. Money allows a candidate and party to define their opponent and the narrative of the race. But it doesn’t always work when a national story line overshadows the contest.

“If the climate stays the way it is now, the money will come in late,” the Democratic source added. “[Republicans] won’t need as much as what people think.”

Even with a financial advantage, the DCCC will likely face some tough spending decisions. Democrats may have to learn to cut their losses in some seats early on because, in the end, it’s not necessarily about how much money you have, it’s about how you spend it.

In 2006, the NRCC kept pumping money into Ohio’s open 18th district ($3.2 million), the open seat in Texas’ 22nd district ($1.8 million) and the re-election race of then-Rep. Don Sherwood (R-Pa.) ($1.5 million), even though it became clear well before Election Day that each race was unwinnable.

But conversely, heavy NRCC spending in some races was a big factor in the GOP holding as many as a dozen seats.

With an expanding playing field that increasingly puts Democrats on the defensive, Democratic offensive opportunities appear to be shrinking. And with more vulnerable incumbents looking to the committee for help, Member races have to take priority over open-seat and challenger contests when it comes to funding priorities.


This story first appeared in Roll Call on January 14, 2010. 2010 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Some House Recruits Have Yet to Measure Up to Hype

By Nathan L. Gonzales

During the election off-year, the House campaign committees spend much of their time recruiting and then promoting their top candidates — like college football teams touting their class of high school prospects before they hit the field. But a year out from Election Day, Democrats and Republicans have highly touted recruits who have either flamed out or are far from living up to the early hype.

Simply put, both parties have candidates looking to get back on track.

This spring, Springfield, Ore., Mayor Sid Leiken was touted as one of a handful of top recruits by the National Republican Congressional Committee. By challenging Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) in the 4th district, Leiken was supposed to be an example of the GOP’s effort to recruit top-notch challengers in districts that haven’t been competitive in recent cycles.

Leiken filed on May 13, but his campaign derailed less than a month later after it came to light that he paid his mother $2,000 for campaign polling to a company that wasn’t registered with the state. Over a number of days the story grew bigger as facts trickled out.

“It’s the difference between an article and a story,” according to a House GOP strategist.

Leiken choked back tears as he admitted to failing to properly document the transaction, and the secretary of state is looking into it. The matter was not insignificant, but it didn’t have to completely disrupt his campaign.

“You have to get good people around these candidates for them to succeed,” according to one GOP consultant who believes Leiken could have weathered the storm with better advice.

Instead of giving DeFazio a run for his money (the incumbent had $583,000 in the bank on Sept. 30), Leiken is facing fundraising troubles on top of everything else. The mayor raised just $52,000 through the end of the third quarter and had a paltry $21,000 in his campaign account at the end of September.

According to one GOP source, Leiken is making some changes in his campaign, but it may be too late to change the narrative of the race. For now, he may not even be Republicans’ hottest race in Oregon, with strategists becoming more excited about their prospects in the 5th and even 1st districts.

Across the country in Florida, a once-hot Democratic candidate is having trouble living up to early expectations as well.

For years, Democrats have believed that Rep. Bill Young (R) is close to retiring in Florida’s 10th district. Growing impatient because the former Appropriations chairman continues to seek re-election, this cycle Democrats recruited state Sen. Charlie Justice (D) into the race to see if they could smoke Young out. But Justice’s early fundraising has been mediocre, and Democrats are a long way from scaring Young into retirement.

Justice filed on April 24, raised $86,000 his first quarter of fundraising and $77,000 in his second. Those are less than spectacular numbers for a star recruit. He ended September with $101,000 in the bank, but Young had four times that amount.

“He needs to put in the work to build his operation and make sure he has the money to compete,” admitted one House Democratic strategist. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (Fla.), who is the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s vice chairwoman for incumbent retention this cycle, has been assigned to Justice to help jump-start his campaign.

The jury is still out on several other notable early recruits.

Republicans believe Manchester Mayor Frank Guinta will mount a strong challenge against Rep. Carol Shea-Porter (D) in New Hampshire’s 1st district. Guinta got into the race early and drew fire from Democrats after being at a bar when a brawl broke out and failing to call the police.

Democrats believe the mayor’s candidacy was derailed by the incident and highlight the fact that he only raised $126,000 in the third quarter. But Republicans point out that Guinta’s total was only slightly behind Shea-Porter’s $141,000 raised for the quarter and that he ended September only about $100,000 behind the incumbent in cash on hand.

Along with Leiken, California Assemblyman Van Tran (R) was part of a recruiting class built to expand the GOP playing field by challenging Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-Calif.).

And like Guinta, Democrats believe Tran’s candidacy has stalled after he raised $92,000 in the third quarter. But after raising a whopping $254,000 from mid-May to June, Tran was going to have difficulty keeping up. After tapping friends and family for contributions, a candidate’s second quarter of fundraising is thought to be considerably more difficult.

Tran had $283,000 in the bank on Sept. 30 compared with $769,000 for Sanchez.

When trouble begins to surface for candidates, early detection is critical.

“Now it’s an identified problem, and we can sit down and try and solve it,” according to one GOP strategist, who would rather advise a candidate after a poor fundraising quarter in the off-year than later next year after resources are invested. “We’re not trying to be ‘survival of the fittest.’ We’re trying to build something.”

Republicans joke that at least their alleged flameouts are raising more money than the Democrats.

Polk County Supervisor of Elections Lori Edwards was supposed to give Democrats a chance at competing for the 12th district seat that Rep. Adam Putnam (R) is vacating in Florida.

She filed on March 2, put together $101,000 through June but raised just $39,000 from July through September and had only $77,000 on hand on Sept. 30. Her likely GOP opponent, former state Rep. Dennis Ross (R), was sitting on $255,000 at the same point.

Similarly, Democrats believe state Rep. Todd Book (D) is their best possible challenger to Rep. Jean Schmidt (R) in Ohio’s 2nd district. But he comes from the least populated portion of the district and raised $64,000 in his first two months in the race, ending September with less than $45,000 in the bank. His opponent in the Democratic primary, David Krikorian, had a head start and showed $115,000 in cash on hand, while Schmidt had $235,000 in the bank.

Schmidt will never be completely safe and Book has time to get on track, but he’s not off to a roaring start. When candidates come up short in fundraising, it’s distressing because that’s all they should be doing at this point, according to one Democratic strategist.

But in the end, even an imperfect challenger could get significant support from their party’s national campaign committee if the race is ultimately deemed as a winnable opportunity.

This story first appeared in Roll Call on October 29, 2009. 2009 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Ohio 15: For Some Incumbents, Vulnerability Is Already a Fact of Life

By Stuart Rothenberg

It’s just after Labor Day of the off year, but at least a dozen House incumbents who narrowly won last year already have formidable opponents for 2010. One of the most vulnerable surely is Rep. Mary Jo Kilroy (D-Ohio), a freshman who represents Union and Madison counties, as well as a part of Franklin County. (She represents all but the east side of Columbus.)

Kilroy served two terms on the Columbus Board of Education before winning election on the Franklin County Commission in 2000. Four years later, she won a second term. In 2006, she ran for Congress against then-Rep. Deborah Pryce (R). While late polling in that race showed Kilroy ahead of Pryce, who was then in the GOP leadership, the Congresswoman won re-election, by just 1,062 votes. Most observers (including me) were surprised.

Pryce took the close call as an opportunity to leave Congress as a winner, opening up a swing district that had been inching toward Democrats and seemed almost certain to go Democratic in 2008. Republicans had recruiting problems in the district until Steve Stivers, who had been appointed to fill a vacant state Senate seat, reversed an earlier decision and decided to make an uphill run for Congress.

Given her previous race, the lack of an incumbent, the public’s desire for change and the Republicans’ disastrous image both in the state and nationally, Kilroy looked like an obvious favorite to win the contest.

On election night, almost complete results showed her trailing very narrowly. But a few days later, when all of the results were in, Kilroy won by 2,312 votes — a margin of less than 1 point.

Kilroy spent $2.6 million in the race compared with Stivers’ $2.4 million, with the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee spending almost double what the National Republican Congressional Committee did in the district — $2.1 million to $930,000.

This time Stivers is back, and the landscape is almost certain to be dramatically better for the Republican.

Last year, Gov. Ted Strickland (D) was popular, while outgoing President George W. Bush was a weight around the neck of his party and his party’s Congressional candidates. At the same time, presidential nominee Barack Obama was a strong motivator for turnout among African-Americans, young people (Ohio State University is located in the district), Democrats and many independents. Obama won the district 54 percent to 45 percent.

This cycle, Strickland’s numbers are down and the Ohio GOP has begun its rebound. Democrats won all but one of the statewide offices in 2006 (Mary Taylor squeezed out a win in the state auditor’s race at the same time as the GOP gubernatorial nominee was losing by 24 points and the party’s sitting U.S. Senator was losing by more than 12 points), but virtually every single one of the statewide races should be competitive in 2010. No matter how those races fall next November, the state landscape will be different, and vastly improved for Republicans, than it was in 2008.

Maybe more important, 2010 will be about Obama and Kilroy, not Bush and Stivers. Kilroy now has a record on controversial federal issues, including votes on a climate change bill, with its cap-and-trade provision, and stimulus bill (both of which she supported), to say nothing of health care reform.

While the Congresswoman’s record certainly will please some, Republicans will be able to paint her votes in an unfavorable light, particularly if unemployment remains high, the economy’s rebound is sluggish, and the deficit balloons.

Moreover, midterm elections tend to bring out voters who are dissatisfied and want to express their displeasure. As of now, that should help Republicans because conservatives are angry and recent polling suggests that independent voters, who behaved liked Democrats for the past two election cycles, are starting to look more like Republicans in their displeasure with Obama.

Finally, last year, two lesser candidates on the ballot drew almost 27,000 votes. One of them was a Libertarian, and that party may well field another candidate next year. But the other name on the ballot, Don Eckhart, was an Independent who opposed abortion and stem cell research and was endorsed by Ohio Right to Life.

Eckhart drew 12,915 votes last time — almost certainly taking more votes away from Stivers than Kilroy. While it’s unclear whether another pro-lifer will be on the ballot next year, the Columbus Dispatch reported in July that Eckhart said he does not plan to run again.

Democrats are already dusting off some of the same attacks that they used last year against Stivers, calling him a lobbyist for the banking industry. Given the industry’s reputation, the charge undoubtedly will resonate with some. But it’s not new.

Kilroy will need to alter the fundamentals of next year’s race by making it a referendum on the challenger, Stivers. That’s not impossible, but it is difficult, especially because Stivers has already been under the microscope.

Last time, Stivers and the NRCC tried to make the race about Kilroy, but they failed because the electorate’s mood was so strongly inclined against the GOP.

Kilroy is sure to be well-funded, and the district is so narrowly divided that a close race appears to be inevitable. But the arithmetic is very difficult for the Congresswoman, and that makes her one of the most vulnerable incumbents in the country.

This column first appeared in Roll Call on September 17, 2009. 2009 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Late Primaries Can Equal Big Headaches in Targeted Races

By Nathan L. Gonzales

As House Republicans are drawing up their list of top Democratic targets in 2010, a familiar enemy awaits: the primary election calendar.

A handful of the GOP’s best takeover opportunities are in states such as Arizona, Maryland, Florida and New Hampshire, where late and crowded primaries have the potential to put the party’s nominee at a distinct disadvantage heading into the general election.

In addition to often leaving the party’s base fractured, late primaries can produce battered nominees with depleted bank accounts and only a few weeks to recover.

Last cycle, in what one GOP operative described as a “train wreck,” Maricopa County Treasurer David Schweikert won the Republican nomination with 29 percent in a six-way primary in early September in Arizona’s 5th district.

While Schweikert began to reload for the general election, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee unloaded television ads attacking him the same week. Schweikert was never really able to regain strong footing, and Rep. Harry Mitchell (D) — who was then a top target after knocking off a Republican incumbent in 2006 — easily won re-election, 53 percent to 44 percent.

Schweikert “never got out of the box,” one Democratic strategist said.

Mitchell is once again a top target in 2010, but Republicans face yet another late primary. Schweikert is running again, and this time he faces a primary against former LucasArts President Jim Ward.

Along with the financial ramifications of a late primary, the increasing emphasis on early voting is a challenge because it narrows the window between when the primary ends and the general election begins. In Arizona, next year’s primary will be Aug. 24 while early voting begins Oct. 7.

Republicans also have their sights set on freshman Rep. Frank Kratovil (D-Md.), who won in the heavily Republican 1st district last year with 49 percent of the vote. Kratovil benefited greatly from a bloody GOP primary fight between moderate Rep. Wayne Gilchrest and state Sen. Andy Harris. Harris won, but the fight left the party heavily fractured, both ideologically and geographically, with Harris burning many bridges in the Eastern Shore-based district. Gilchrest went on to endorse Kratovil, and Harris couldn’t match the Democrats’ spending on Baltimore television.

Harris is running again, but he may face state Sen. E.J. Pipkin (who came in third in the 2008 primary) or former state Del. Al Redmer in the primary. More importantly, last year’s primary was held Feb. 12 in conjunction with the presidential primary, but next year it will be Sept. 14.

Last cycle, the National Republican Congressional Committee in particular took heat for not getting more involved in primaries in order to get the strongest general election candidate. But in an age when candidates are eager to run against the establishment, there isn’t a lot the national parties can do to clear primary fields.

“The NRCC’s policy on primaries is that there is no policy,” one committee official said. At times in the past, the committee’s intervention has created exactly the opposite effect of what was intended.

One thing the campaign committees can do is grease the fundraising gears. Earlier this decade, the NRCC created special funds to raise money for its eventual nominees in competitive races with contested primaries. The accounts were a repository for money from other Members and for money that the White House helped raise to be transferred to the Congressional nominee after the primary.

For example, in 2004, then-Washington state Rep. Cathy McMorris inherited $200,000 after she won the GOP nomination on Sept. 14 in a three-way primary. The infusion of money helped her gain the 5th district seat over a self-funding Democratic opponent.

“Late primaries have to be managed,”one GOP operative said. Aside from setting up special accounts, Republicans try to prepare by making sure potential nominees have their general election media and mail plans in places, including research on potential opponents.

The DCCC prepares research on all potential GOP opponents, but instead of setting up generic fundraising accounts in certain races, the committee immediately puts its nominees on the “Red to Blue” program list in order to jump-start their fundraising and boost the candidates’ ability to collect Member contributions.

In addition to the Arizona race, the DCCC went on the air in New Hampshire’s 1st district almost immediately after former Rep. Jeb Bradley secured the GOP nomination in early September of last year. The committee’s spending helped boost Rep. Carol Shea-Porter (D) to a 52 percent to 46 percent victory in November.

Two years before, Shea-Porter surprised both parties when she knocked off state Senate Minority Leader Jim Craig, the DCCC’s preferred candidate, and went on to defeat Bradley without support from the national party.

This cycle, Republicans look to be headed for another September primary to determine who will take on Shea-Porter. But Democrats will also likely have a crowded primary in the state’s 2nd district, where they are trying to hold the seat being vacated by Rep. Paul Hodes (D) to run for Senate.

The DCCC chose not to immediately flex its fundraising muscle last year in New York’s 26th district after Alice Kryzan (D) was the surprise winner of the Sept. 9 primary over the DCCC’s favored candidate.

Recent Republican successes in races that featured late primaries have often been circumstantial.

Last year in Kansas’ 2nd district, state Treasurer Lynn Jenkins beat former Rep. Jim Ryun in a competitive Aug. 5 primary. But Jenkins’ general election victory over then-Rep. Nancy Boyda (D) had more to do with the Republican nature of the district and the relatively inexpensive media markets there. Another big factor was that Boyda shunned all outside help, so the DCCC didn’t come in with its usual TV blitz.

Back in 2000 when Republicans enjoyed more fundraising parity (and were able to use soft money), the NRCC helped elect Ric Keller (R) in Florida’s 8th district by going on television and attacking Orange County Chairman Linda Chapin (D) three weeks before the primary. Keller finished second in the Sept. 5 primary and first in the Oct. 3 runoff.

But a late primary also helped foreshadow Keller’s loss in 2008. The Congressman’s 53 percent to 47 percent primary victory over an unknown candidate on Aug. 26 demonstrated that he had significant cracks in his base of support. He lost in November 52 percent to 48 percent to now-Rep. Alan Grayson (D).

Multiple candidates are interested in taking on Grayson in 2010, setting up what could be a competitive Aug. 24 GOP primary in the 8th district. Republicans could also see a crowded primary in the 24th district represented by freshman Rep. Suzanne Kosmas (D-Fla.).

Democrats are not immune to the negative fallout from late primaries, but with a significant majority in the House, they are less of a concern.

Democrats will likely see a competitive September primary in Hawaii’s 1st district, where Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D) is running for governor. Honolulu City Councilman Charles Djou (R) is hoping for a repeat of 1986, when Republican Pat Saiki was elected to Congress in the wake of a bloody late Democratic primary.

Multiple Democratic candidates are lining up to take on Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), including 2008 nominee Elwyn Tinklenberg, physician Maureen Reed and state Sen. Tarryl Clark. Democrats hope the party’s nominating convention winnows the field before the September primary.

Similarly in Colorado’s 4th district, Republicans hope that state Rep. Cory Gardner’s early fundraising and the district’s convention sorts out the GOP race before the Aug. 12 primary.

This story first appeared in Roll Call on July 23, 2009. 2009 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Midterms, History and the Expectations Game for the House in 2010

By Stuart Rothenberg

One of the jobs of nonpartisan analysts is to keep the parties honest. Partisans have a tendency to talk themselves into certain opinions, and there are enough data out there to make any case they wish. Nowhere is this more obvious than in the expectations game.

Over the past few months, both Democratic and Republican officeholders have noted that midterm elections usually result in losses — often sizable losses — for the president’s party. Democrats make the assertion so that they’ll be able to claim victory if the party suffers a small net loss next November, while Republicans cite the trend as a recruiting tool and to boost party morale.

Just recently, a Republican Congressional candidate told me that he expected his party to make big gains next year “because the average midterm loss for a president’s party is 30 seats.” That number has also been cited by Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Chris Van Hollen (Md.) in his effort to set a bar that he certainly can beat.

In fact, “averaging” midterm results over the past 100 or 150 years, or even the past 50 years, to set expectations for 2010 makes no sense. Averages are meaningless when you have a wide range of outcomes, as there have been in midterm elections since 1960, a reasonable place to start examining recent midterm trends.

Over the past five decades, there have been 12 midterm elections. Five of them resulted in large losses of at least 20 seats by the president’s party: 2006 (30 seats), 1994 (52 seats), 1982 (26 seats), 1974 (49 seats) and 1966 (47 seats).

Another five elections resulted either in small losses or gains by the president’s party — 2002 (+8 seats), 1998 (+5 seats), 1990 (-8 seats), 1986 (-5 seats) and 1962 (-4 seats). The remaining two outcomes were between the two extremes, with the president’s party losing 15 seats in 1978 and 12 seats in 1970. (Midterm numbers come from “Vital Statistics on Congress: 2001-2002” by Norman J. Ornstein, Thomas E. Mann and Michael J. Malbin.)

Clearly then, midterm results over the past 50 years have generally fallen into one of two ranges — either small, single-digit changes (even sometimes in the favor of the president’s party) or large swings of at least two dozen and sometimes close to four dozen seats against the president’s party.

“Averaging” the outcomes of these dozen elections exaggerates the importance of the years with the biggest swings (1994, 1974 and 1966), ignores the bimodal distribution of election outcomes and produces a number that doesn’t come close to reflecting what has actually happened in the elections.

To be sure, the general trend that the president’s party loses seats in midterms certainly is worth noting, as is the fact that in only two of the past six midterms has the president’s party suffered anything more than single-digit losses. Indeed, in two of the past three midterms, the president’s party has gained seats. So we should expect Democrats to gain a handful of seats, shouldn’t we? Obviously not.

Each election, even each midterm, is different. The GOP is now down to 178 seats in the House, far below what it was just six years ago and back to where it was before the 1994 midterm surge vaulted Republicans into the majority. After back-to-back strong Democratic victories in 2006 and 2008 — when the party gained 50 House seats — the GOP is due to rebound, especially with Democratic President Barack Obama in the White House.

But the president’s continued popularity, the damage to the Republican brand, and the Democrats’ financial advantage limit the snapback that the GOP and the National Republican Congressional Committee can expect. Moreover, the noteworthy scarcity of House Democratic retirements so far and decisions by a few Republicans in Democratic-leaning districts to seek higher office give Democrats and the DCCC the opportunity to minimize overall losses.

Since we can’t know what shape the country or the economy will be in next fall, we can’t know whether Republicans will have a robust rebound or a modest one. But the evidence so far suggests a small 5- to 10-seat Republican rebound is more likely than anything substantial, and, at this point, a 30-seat Republican gain looks like a pipe dream. Of course, ruling out any specific outcome 15 months before the election is unwise.

Voters are increasingly concerned about the Obama agenda and the performance of the Democratic Congress, so a larger GOP gain than the one now likely certainly could occur. But right now, most GOP political strategists say they would be thrilled with a net gain of a dozen seats in the House, though they expect a somewhat smaller number. A 15-seat GOP gain would cause a wild celebration among savvy Republican operatives.

As for Democratic efforts to limit the party’s House losses to “just” 10 seats, as the DCCC has said, that’s a reasonable and a realistic goal. Anything much above that would be a surprisingly good year for the NRCC. Of course, during the rest of this year and next, expectations can and will change. Just don’t let anyone fool you into thinking that history forecasts a big Republican sweep. It doesn’t.


This column first appeared in Roll Call on June 23, 2009. 2009 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

2010 State Races Will Shape Redraw

By Nathan L. Gonzales and Lauren W. Whittington

When Florida Gov. Charlie Crist announced last week that he is running for the Senate in 2010 instead of seeking re-election, the move was hailed as Senate Republicans’ biggest recruiting coup of the cycle.

But the news was hardly treated with applause from the Republican Governors Association or any Republican with an eye toward the upcoming post-2010 redistricting battle.

Crist’s departure creates an instantly competitive open-seat race — one of about a dozen next year that could have a serious effect on which party has more influence in the redrawing of House districts.

“Last time, the Republicans controlled more seats at the redistricting table than at any time since 1920,” former Rep. Tom Davis (R-Va.) said in a recent interview.

Fast-forward almost a decade and the picture heading into the next redraw looks very different for the GOP.

Both parties are aware of what’s at stake in the 2010 gubernatorial and state legislative races in terms of what the outcomes mean for the next redistricting fight, and both are ramping up their efforts accordingly. But Republicans appear to have the most to win or lose.

The party is down 40 seats in the House and out of power in the White House, and the sizable lead in the number of governorships that the GOP controlled after the 2000 elections has been whittled down to a 22-28 deficit.

On top of that, the upcoming redistricting will be the first since passage of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, which eliminated soft money and will severely limit Members’ involvement in the process.

Traditionally, the Republican National Committee has coordinated the GOP’s redistricting effort, relying heavily on soft money. In contrast, Democrats have relied on outside groups, such as labor unions for fundraising and coordination, making it easier for them to adapt to the new rules.

Davis was one of the key players in the last round of redistricting as chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee. He recalled how important soft money was in the committee’s effort to influence state legislative races in 1999 and 2000, the election cycle before the new lines were drawn.

For instance, Davis said the NRCC poured an estimated $1 million into General Assembly races in Virginia in 1999, the year that the GOP wrested control of the House of Delegates and therefore total control of the redistricting process.

“In 2000, we were very, very focused on the legislative elections, in terms of the state Legislatures,” Davis said. “We were planning well ahead of the game on that.”

But at the moment, Republicans appear to be barely getting out of the conversation stage in terms of their redistricting game plan, in part because of the transition to power of RNC Chairman Michael Steele.

The RNC is moving to take the lead once again, and on Friday, it announced Tennessee National Committeeman John Ryder will serve as chairman of the redistricting committee. The RNC also signed on Tom Hofeller, who is considered to be the party’s authority on redistricting when it comes to data and analysis.

“Every cycle there is a complete educational process within the party,” said Hofeller, who has decades of redistricting experience working at the RNC, the NRCC and as staff director of the House Subcommittee on the Census.

NRCC Chairman Pete Sessions (Texas) has tapped Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (Ga.) to be the Congressional liaison to other Members and to state legislatures. Both men have extensive experience with redistricting in their home states.

“I’ve been given the task to win. So that’s what we’re working on,” Westmoreland said. “We’re just trying to get it all coordinated and make sure that the left hand knows what the right hand’s doing.”

The RNC will likely be a vehicle for number crunching (fusing upcoming, block-level Census data with precinct-level election results, which can be a laborious process) and a valuable resource to state legislative caucuses. But it’s unclear whether the RNC can devote the same resources without soft money.

Unless Republicans are planning on funding the entire redistricting effort, including the electoral, analytical and legal aspects, with hard dollars during a presidential cycle, an outside group or groups will need to be formed.

“Everyone is coming around to the reality that this is a team game,” another GOP consultant said.

While conversations within GOP circles are clearly ongoing, a specific answer to the expected fundraising and coordinated efforts of Democratic groups has not emerged. Party insiders are discussing ways to merge experienced redistricting operatives with individuals who can raise the millions of dollars necessary to fund the effort.

A host of Republican attorneys, including Ben Ginsberg, Mark Braden and Dale Oldham, and other GOP operatives who have experience in redistricting will likely find a home in the GOP strategy, but there isn’t a natural landing place for them yet, nor a clear way to pay them.

According to one GOP source, a high-profile national Republican strategist is on the verge of forming an outside group in an attempt to fill the vacuum on the Republican side. The group could come together in the next couple of weeks and help raise nonfederal dollars for the cause, including the inevitable legal battles.

Fundraising continues to be a very serious concern on the Republican side, particularly after a cycle when the conservative group Freedom’s Watch failed to deliver the financial muscle that many people expected. Members can’t have anything to do with raising nonfederal money, so Republicans may have to rely on former elected officials, governors or special interest groups to raise millions of dollars. According to one GOP consultant, Republicans have to train their donors to give to outside groups.

Redistricting veterans caution that there is only so much that can be done from Washington, D.C., because redistricting is largely a state-by-state war.

“Ultimately, it’s about controlling the governors and the legislatures,” Davis said.

Governors play a direct role in redistricting (whether it is veto power or appointment of a commission) in all but eight states. And state legislatures will draw the lines in 36 states.

The Republican Governors Association and Republican State Leadership Committee are separately focused on winning gubernatorial and state legislative races in order to secure seats at the redistricting table.

“Nothing we do will be more important than what happens at the ballot box in 2009 [and] 2010,” according to one House GOP aide.

One factor that Republicans have on their side looking toward redistricting, Davis argued, is that most of the states with population growth lean toward the GOP. In addition, because of the massive Democratic gains in the past two election cycles, Davis said the Democratic strategy may be more about preserving the territory that they already have rather than carving new seats.

He estimated there are only about dozen states where it might be possible to draw a Member out of office.

“Democrats have so overperformed at this point, that there’s not a lot a lot of pickup that they’re going to be able to get in redistricting outside of California,” Davis said.

Fewer Republicans in Congress also means it’s likely fewer deals will get cut. Two of the key states where incumbent protection deals were cut last time — California and Illinois — are unlikely to see similar agreements this time, and both states favor Democrats gains.

Getting Members, outside groups and others to focus at this stage can be difficult, unless it’s made clear what is really at stake, Westmoreland said.

“I don’t think it’s too early, and I think it is a big story because it will determine the next 10 years of Congress,” he said.

This story first appeared in Roll Call on May 19, 2009. 2009 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

With All the Bad News, How Can the NRCC Recruit Candidates?

By Stuart Rothenberg

Over the past few weeks, a handful of potentially strong Republican challengers have jumped into House races. Sid Leiken in Oregon, Frank Guinta in New Hampshire, Van Tran in California and Cory Gardner in Colorado, for example, look to be the kind of recruits whom Republicans didn’t get last cycle.

Leiken, who is running against Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.), and Tran, who will challenge Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-Calif.), are running in districts that the National Republican Congressional Committee hasn’t targeted in many cycles.

Of course, there is no guarantee that these Republicans will turn out to be ideal challengers, or even that they’ll win. On paper, former Kansas City Mayor Kay Barnes (D) and Illinois businessman Steve Greenberg (R) looked interesting in the previous cycle. Then, as actual candidates, they flopped.

Given the Democrats’ certain fundraising advantage, the damage to the GOP brand, President Barack Obama’s strong poll numbers, the lack of an effective national Republican message and internal GOP divisions, how are national Republican strategists selling potential candidates on a 2010 run?

Is this first wave of GOP recruits merely the low-hanging fruit? Will the NRCC be able to recruit credible challengers in additional districts that they have ignored over the past few cycles?

And while the NRCC has interesting candidates against DeFazio and Sanchez, will the party have formidable challengers to freshman Democratic Reps. Bobby Bright (Ala.), Harry Teague (N.M.), Alan Grayson (Fla.), Larry Kissell (N.C.) and Mary Jo Kilroy (Ohio), each of whom is more vulnerable than DeFazio or Sanchez?

Republican strategists acknowledge that the national political landscape still isn’t wildly favorable for recruiting, but they argue persuasively that changes since November make recruiting far easier than during the previous two election cycles.

First, Republican operatives note the historical trend that the party controlling the White House loses seats in midterm elections, and they say that trend is one reason why some potential candidates are more interested in running in 2010.

Party strategists also argue that Democrats first elected to the House during the past two cycles have never run in a neutral political environment and therefore have never really been tested. That argument makes some Democrats seem less intimidating than their incumbency might suggest.

But GOP insiders say one factor is more important than any other in explaining the greater interest from potential candidates.

“Some candidates took a pass last time because they didn’t want to have to run in Bush’s shadow. Democrats don’t have Bush to use this time. This time, they’ll have to stand with the president or [Speaker Nancy] Pelosi. We definitely point that out to candidates,” one Republican operative said.

“We are using the same message that Democrats used in 2005: the president,” a Republican strategist echoed. “Whenever you have an activist president — on either end of the ideological spectrum — a lot of people who otherwise wouldn’t run decide that they have to do something. They believe that the president is running the country into a ditch.”

For many reporters and Democrats, this assessment seems odd because Obama’s polling numbers look good. But the president isn’t equally popular everywhere or among all groups, and his administration is already controversial.

Finally, NRCC insiders also say the committee has changed some of its approaches, even borrowing ideas and strategies from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

The NRCC’s “Patriot” program is a thinly veiled copy of the DCCC’s “Frontline” program, which is aimed at helping re-elect incumbents.

“From now on, Members will be holding other Members accountable for running strong re-election efforts,” said one insider who expressed frustration and even contempt for past Republican incumbents, such as Reps. John Hostettler (Ind.) and Bill Sali (Idaho), who failed to fundraise or run modern campaigns.

The NRCC is also taking a page out of the DCCC’s playbook by trying to put more districts into play, a very different strategy from the one followed when Republicans controlled the House.

The committee has absorbed what was a small program initially established by GOP Reps. Eric Cantor (Va.), Paul Ryan (Wis.) and Kevin McCarthy (Calif.) — the “Young Guns” program — to help candidates put together quality campaigns and to measure the success of those efforts.

Candidates are required to meet a series of benchmarks that the NRCC (often in coordination with the campaign) identifies, including fundraising goals and a fundraising system; a volunteer database and recruitment goals; an e-mail list, press lists and communications strategies; and media training, vendors and other measures.

Candidates who reach the first set of benchmarks are placed in “On the Radar” status, while those who move on and satisfy the next set of benchmarks reach the “Contender” status. Reaching the top level of benchmarks gets a candidate the status of “Young Gun,” assuring a certain level of NRCC assistance with fundraising and staff. (Certainly sounds something like the DCCC’s “Red to Blue” program, doesn’t it?)

“It’s an interactive program,” said one Republican who is close to the NRCC. “We want to help candidates get there, not merely give them goals and tell them to get back to us when they have met them.”

The NRCC still has a long way to go in candidate recruitment. And potential retirements (and Senate candidacies), financial issues and branding problems could well leave the campaign committee in another hole for the cycle. But at this point, the Republican Party’s national problems haven’t dried up interest in 2010 House bids.

This column first appeared in Roll Call on May 18, 2009. 2009 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Parties Prepping for Redistricting Fight

By Nathan L. Gonzales and Lauren W. Whittington

Republicans and Democrats are already organizing and strategizing for their decennial battle over Congressional redistricting, with a decade’s worth of elections hanging in the balance.

While the fight over conducting the census is expected to take center stage over the next year and a half, partisans on both sides of the aisle are keenly aware of what is at stake in the post-2010 redrawing of district boundaries.

Democrats thus far appear to have the upper hand over their GOP counterparts in terms of behind-the-scenes planning for the fight, perhaps a result of the fact that the party lost the overall battle in the last round of redistricting.

Democrats are also now in control of Congress and the White House, which was not the case at the time of the last redraw, and they will no doubt look to the upcoming effort to help cement, and grow, their majority.

Former Rep. Tom Davis (Va.) was deeply involved in the last redistricting as head of the National Republican Congressional Committee from 1999 through 2002.

“They were sleeping last time,” Davis said of Democrats. “They slept through this stuff. I think they’ve gone to school on what we did.”

The upcoming round of redistricting will be unlike any other because it is the first since passage of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, which prohibits the use of soft money and thus severely limits the involvement of Members. Lawmakers can still raise hard dollars for the effort, but party strategists on both sides of the aisle are trying to figure out how to tackle redistricting under the new guidelines.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has tapped fellow California Rep. Mike Thompson (D) to spearhead the party’s redistricting effort.

“We just want to make sure everybody’s ready,” Thompson said. “I’ve been meeting with the different delegations and making sure that any questions that they have can be answered. [That] they know exactly what they can and can’t do. And making sure that the states are ramped up and ready to go so that we don’t get caught flat-footed.”

Traditionally, Democrats have relied on outside groups to handle the nuts and bolts of their redistricting effort, putting them in a better position to adapt to the new rules.

The Democratic effort will utilize a divide-and-conquer strategy, covering the electoral, analytical and legal battles of the redistricting war.

A new entity is forming to head up the party’s legal strategy. According to multiple Democratic sources, it’s likely to be called the Redistricting Trust.

Final details and paperwork for the organization are still being worked out but former Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Political Director Brian Smoot will be the executive director and a number of high-level DCCC veterans will be involved as well. The group will focus on developing national and state-specific legal strategies, according to Smoot, who is also a partner with 4C Partners.

The new group will be able to accept non-federal dollars, placing the funding burden squarely on outside groups.

“In 2003, progressive groups attacked redistricting as a political problem, but it was a legal problem,” said Democratic strategist Matt Angle. He stressed the need for progressive groups to embrace the legal cause, as well as the map-drawing and electoral aspects.

In July 2008, representatives from the major groups involved in the redistricting process — including the National Committee for an Effective Congress, Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee, and American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees — met at Democratic National Committee headquarters.

The Democratic Governors Association and DLCC are focused on making sure that Democrats have as many seats at the redistricting table as possible. That means winning gubernatorial and state legislative races beginning this year.

“It’s all incidental if you don’t have the seats,” said one Democratic strategist. “It’s important to control the chambers.”

The governorships of 36 states are up for election next year. The governor has a direct role in Congressional remapping (whether it is veto power or appointment of a commission) in all but eight states. State legislatures will draw the lines in 36 states.

The DLCC is also involved in the Foundation for the Future, a Democratic 527 organized in July 2006 to prepare for redistricting.

The AFSCME is also involved with the foundation and party insiders credit the labor union for important work at the state level and bringing financial backing to the table. The NCEC, including Washington Director Mark Gersh, is considered the gold-standard when it comes to number-crunching, data analysis and projecting demographic trends in districts on the Democratic side and is also a key player in the Foundation for the Future.

Democrats view the NCEC’s work as critical because redistricting is more than drawing maps. It’s about understanding population trends in order to draw districts that survive electoral ups and downs. Data analysis is also important because this is the first remapping that will be undertaken with a Democratic-led Justice Department since passage of the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

The foundation appears to be the latest version of the National Democratic Redistricting Project, which began in the late 1980s and was led by then-Rep. Vic Fazio (D-Calif.) in the early 1990s.

Then-Rep. Martin Frost (D-Texas) led the party’s effort a decade ago through IMPAC 2000, and he is also likely to be involved again.

Angle, Frost’s former chief of staff, worked closely with IMPAC 2000 and has subsequently focused on Democratic efforts in Texas and is working as an outside consultant to the Foundation for the Future. Former DCCC political director and media consultant Peter Cari was executive director of IMPAC 2000 and is likely to be involved in the overall redistricting effort in some capacity.

In 2002, redistricting helped George W. Bush buck history, as Republicans gained seats in the president’s first midterm elections for only the second time since Abraham Lincoln. Fueled by their losses that cycle and a mid-decade redistricting by Republicans in Texas, Democrats are determined to not let that happen again.

“We want to make sure things are fair,” Thompson said. “We saw what happened in Texas where there was pretty unfair tactics used to redistrict that state. We want to make sure that doesn’t happen again.”

This story first appeared in Roll Call on May 18, 2009. 2009 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Is the New York Race a Referendum on the Candidates or Politics?

By Stuart Rothenberg

Is the special election in New York’s 20th district a referendum on the national political environment — on President Barack Obama, Washington, D.C.’s handling of the American International Group bonus scandal, the economic stimulus package and the national reputations of the two parties? Or, rather, is it about the skills and appeal of the two candidates?

It’s about both.

Republican Jim Tedisco initially appeared to possess the most important qualities for the brief campaign. A veteran of the New York state Legislature, he is known as “Mr. Schenectady” and has deep roots in the area. He also appeared to benefit from the district’s GOP leanings and a 70,000-voter registration advantage.

But even some Republicans acknowledge that Tedisco, the State Assembly Minority Leader, is, as one put it, like “the old dog that can’t learn new tricks.” Democrats have used his lengthy record against him, portraying him as an insider and part of the problem.

One Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee-funded TV ad, for example, asserted that “politician Jim Tedisco” is “just another Albany politician,” while a different spot attacked the Republican for collecting per diem allowances from the state even though he lives 17 miles from Albany.

Democrat Scott Murphy, 39, has never run for office before and claims to have created jobs as a businessman. He worked for two Democratic governors in Missouri, but voters don’t seem to care that he hasn’t lived in the area as long as Tedisco. The Democrat presents himself as the candidate of change and new ideas, another not-so-subtle effort to create a contrast with his Republican opponent.

Murphy stumbled out of the gate but has become a better candidate. And yet he has given Republicans openings, such as his recent comment that he opposes the death penalty even for terrorists. That view is simply out of touch with the district. And his decision to reiterate his support of the stimulus bill, even knowing that a measure to prevent bonuses for executives of companies like AIG had been removed, is a potentially serious blunder.

Still, local observers note that the Midwestern Murphy may be a better fit for the northern and southern parts of the district than Tedisco, an urban ethnic politician who plays well in Schenectady and Albany — neither of which are in the 20th district — but not necessarily in the “white bread,” old Yankee areas of the district.

But while the candidates matter, so do the race’s atmospherics, and that’s where national figures and issues come into play.

Polling shows Murphy doing well among independents and getting a chunk of GOP voters, a function no doubt of his outsider profile and embrace of change, jobs and Obama.

Obama carried the district in 2008, and he remains popular. So is Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D), who won it twice. She urges voters to support Murphy in a TV spot, and she will be active in get-out-the-vote efforts in the race’s final days.

The jobs issue is Murphy’s ace in the hole. His campaign and the DCCC repeatedly emphasize the Democrat’s support of the president’s job creation agenda, trying to create a contrast with Tedisco.

While the Republican nominee has talked about job losses and his commitment to bringing jobs to the area, nationally, the GOP still has problems convincing voters that it has a quick fix for job losses. The Republican Party’s image is poor, and the national atmosphere isn’t better for the party than it was in 2006 and 2008.

Fundamentally, the Republican answer to all economic slowdowns and unemployment is tax cuts, and while party policy advocates may be correct that that is the best way to get the economy going and to keep it going, tax cuts simply aren’t a compelling message to voters who have lost their jobs and want immediate help. The national Democratic approach is more effective, politically, right now, and Murphy seems to be reaping the benefits of that advantage.

The big questions in this race, however, involve AIG, the insurance giant-turned-financial services company. Is Tedisco benefitting enough from the issue to help him win?

The Republican continues to attack Murphy on that front, noting in a radio spot that began airing Tuesday that the Democrat “backs the law allowing AIG millionaires to collect outrageous bonuses” and that that’s not surprising because Murphy has “approved bonuses for failing executives before in another company taxpayers helped.”

Insiders agree that the race is “within the margin of error,” which is why both sides are so focused on turnout. A new Siena College poll expected to be released Friday could be an important indicator of how the race has moved in the campaign’s final days.

If Tedisco loses, it’s hard to see how National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Pete Sessions (Texas) and Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele deserve any blame, but I’m sure someone will fault them. If Murphy wins, local Democrats and the DCCC will deserve considerable credit, as will the candidate.

If Tedisco wins, it isn’t likely to be pretty, and Republicans should breathe a sigh of relief rather than celebrate wildly.


This column first appeared in Roll Call on March 26, 2009. 2009 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

New York 20: DCCC Turns to Ralston-Lapp for IE

By Stuart Rothenberg and Nathan L. Gonzales

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee entered the New York 20 special election over the weekend with a significant $139,000 television ad buy, according the committee’s 24-hour, independent expenditure disclosure, filed with the Federal Election Commission on Monday afternoon.

On Friday, the National Republican Congressional Committee filed their $147,000 television ad buy. The GOP independent expenditure ads were produced by Chris Mattola.

The DCCC ads were produced by Ralston Lapp Media . In 2006, Lapp was the DCCC’s political director before moving over to coordinate the committee’s IE campaign. And last cycle, he was a key consultant to the IE campaign, headed up by new DCCC executive director Jon Vogel.

Lapp and his partner, Jason Ralston, are handling the DCCC’s IE program for the special election.

State Assembly Minority Leader Jim Tedisco (R) and venture capitalist Scott Murphy (D) are squaring off in the race to replace appointed Sen. Kristen Gillibrand (D).

New York 20: The DCCC's Decision

By Stuart Rothenberg

This column first appeared in Roll Call on March 5. The DCCC did indeed start their TV campaign over the weekend.

To play or not to play, that is the question. Democrats began this year holding 257 seats in the House, a majority so large that the party can afford a few defections here and there, or even the loss of a seat in a special election.

Kirsten Gillibrand’s appointment to the Senate has put one of those Democratic seats at risk, and party strategists have to decide how far they’ll go to try to hold it.

Should the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee invest substantial resources in that contest, risking making it a referendum on the first months of Barack Obama’s presidency and Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) House leadership? Or should the DCCC keep expectations low by doing little more than it has already done for its nominee?

The district starts just outside Poughkeepsie and stretches all the way north along the state’s eastern border up to Lake Placid, and also includes an arm south of Albany that runs west toward Binghamton. It’s a sprawling district by New York standards, the state’s second-largest geographically.

While Republicans hold a voter registration advantage in the district over Democrats, and George W. Bush carried the district 54 percent to 46 percent in 2004, it went for Obama in 2008 by between 3 and 6 points, depending on whose numbers you believe.

And the GOP enrollment advantage in the district has been falling steadily over the past few elections, from 88,667 in November 2004 to 82,737 in November 2006 to 70,632 last year.

Gillibrand won the House seat initially in 2006, aided by a GOP incumbent who proved to be a magnet for bad media coverage. More impressive than that victory, however, was Gillibrand’s re-election last year.

She beat challenger Sandy Treadwell (R), a personable, wealthy one-time Republican state party chairman, by 75,000 votes (58 percent to 35 percent). Gillibrand ran ahead of Treadwell in each of the four full counties and six partial counties that make up the district.

Knowledgeable observers agree that talk of the GOP registration advantage in the district misses the point, ignoring the fact that party registration is a lagging indicator. Indeed, private polling confirms that the district’s current generic partisanship is much closer to even than the registration numbers suggest.

The Democratic nominee, businessman Scott Murphy, has already received the backing of the state AFL-CIO and won the Independence Party line, which Gillibrand did not have in 2008. The DCCC has been airing radio ads in the district, and the committee’s national press secretary, Ryan Rudominer, has been in the district for weeks, ever since Murphy stumbled out of the gate.

A Siena College poll conducted February 18-19 showed the Republican nominee, state Assembly Minority Leader Jim Tedisco, leading Murphy by 12 points, 46 percent to 34 percent. Other polling generally confirms the Siena numbers and finds Tedisco ahead but not over the 50 percent mark.

Tedisco’s lead isn’t unexpected, considering that he has represented part of the district in the New York State Assembly for 25 years, the last few serving as Minority Leader. Murphy, on the other hand, hasn’t held elective office. A venture capitalist or a Wall Street executive, depending on your partisan point of view, he has worked as an aide for two Missouri Democratic governors.

Both nominees have some baggage — with Tedisco it’s his long voting record, association with Albany and refusal to take a clear stand on the stimulus bill, while for Murphy it’s business tax liens, writings and statements while in college, and association with Wall Street — so the final month should see plenty of sparks fly.

Some Democrats are privately skeptical about their party’s chances of winning the special election, arguing Tedisco’s initial advantage will be difficult to overcome. But others counter that Tedisco has plenty of baggage, Murphy has a good profile and the district is now almost even in partisan identification, giving Murphy a real shot at an upset.

Republicans believe that they have the advantage in the race, but President Obama’s job ratings in the district remain sky-high, and they don’t believe that the victory is already in the bag.

The fact that the National Republican Congressional Committee just bought a substantial amount of time for an Albany TV buy confirms that GOP operatives believe they are in a serious fight.

Money is also a consideration for Democrats. The DCCC has a debt of $16.5 million coming out of the 2008 elections, but the campaign committee raised $3.5 million in the first month of this year, and it showed $2 million on hand at the end of January — surely enough to play in the special election if party strategists want to.

Right now, Democrats want to have it both ways — emphasizing the difficulty of holding the seat and dismissing a Republican victory in this district as no big deal while still keeping their options open and inching toward making a big bet on Murphy.

The most important question may be this: How have things changed since November? The answer is “not much.” Obama is very popular in the district, the GOP brand damaged and Democrats have another young, outsider nominee. They don’t, however, have the popular Gillibrand on the ballot.

It’s true that House Democrats could afford to lose this seat and it wouldn’t affect them at all on Capitol Hill. But I suspect the DCCC won’t be able to resist taking a flier on Murphy, considering the district’s recent voting history, Tedisco’s long legislative record and the prospect of forcing Republicans to go “all in” on a race that the GOP simply cannot afford to lose.

Tedisco has the edge, but this race could be much closer than many observers expect, especially if the DCCC jumps in.


2009 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

New York 20: DCCC Starts TV Campaign

By Nathan L. Gonzales

This item first appeared on RollCall.com on March 5, 2009.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is weighing into the special election in New York’s 20th district with a television ad buy.



According to knowledgeable sources, the buy is scheduled to start on Friday [March 6] and continue through March 31, the date of the special election. Specific details about the size of the DCCC’s buy are not yet known. The committee previously was on the air with a radio ad.

On Thursday, the National Republican Congressional Committee went on the air with about 1,200 gross ratings points of television ads on broadcast and cable in the Albany media market, which covers the majority of the district.



State Assembly Minority Leader Jim Tedisco (R) and venture capitalist Scott Murphy (D) are squaring off in the race to replace appointed Sen. Kristen Gillibrand (D).

2009 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Have Republicans Found Their Floor in the House With 178?

By Stuart Rothenberg

Republicans hold a mere 178 seats in the House of Representatives, a number far smaller than they’ve held at anytime since the 1992 elections, when the party won only 176 seats.

Just two years later, of course, in the first midterm election after a Democrat (Bill Clinton) was elected to the White House, the GOP gained more than 50 seats, winning a House majority for the first time in 40 years. Could it happen again in 2010?

Don’t bet on it.

National surveys continue to show that the damage to the Republican brand remains very real, and it will likely take the party more than a few months to turn things around. In the meantime, GOP candidate recruitment and fundraising may rebound a bit compared to the previous cycle’s disastrous political environment, but probably not enough to match Democratic efforts in both categories this year and next.

Does that mean that Democrats could increase their numbers in the House in next year’s midterm balloting? It’s not impossible, but it certainly seems unlikely.

Republicans added House seats in four straight elections from 1914 to 1920, and Democrats gained House seats in four consecutive elections a decade after the GOP streak, in 1930, 1932, 1934 and 1936.

Much more recently, Democrats gained seats in three elections in a row from 1986 to 1990 and again from 1996 to 2000. But in both recent cases, their gains in each year were in the single digits, a far cry from the substantial gains that House Democrats made during the last two election cycles.

The last time one party had two big Congressional elections in a row (net gains of at least 20 seats each time), it gave back considerable ground in the following election.

Republicans gained 28 seats in 1950 and 22 seats in 1952, but in 1954, Democrats picked up 19 seats to win back control of the House after two years in the minority.

Since Democrats gained 30 seats in 2006 and 21 in 2008, they now hold more than a few GOP-leaning districts, making them susceptible to a Republican snapback. (The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee insists that it gained 23 seats in 2008 because it includes special election victories held between the 2006 and 2008 general elections.)

That doesn’t mean that the DCCC doesn’t have several interesting opportunities this cycle, only that their opportunities are fewer and that sitting GOP incumbents have demonstrated some level of acumen by surviving elections where many of their colleagues went down to defeat.

Still, DCCC Chairman Chris Van Hollen (Md.) has some targets to shoot at, including GOP open seats and Republican incumbents who won narrowly in the previous cycle but could be vulnerable to a stiffer challenge.

Rep. Anh “Joseph” Cao (R), who upset then-Rep. William Jefferson (D) in Louisiana’s 2nd district, obviously looks like a juicy target. Given the large majority of Democratic and black voters in the district, Cao’s seat should be an easy takeover for the DCCC.

Elsewhere, Democrats are hoping that GOP Reps. Jim Gerlach (Pa.) and Mark Kirk (Ill.) give up their House seats to make statewide bids. They are also hoping that Rep. Bill Young (R-Fla.) will finally call it quits and retire, and that Rep. Mike Castle (R-Del.) will either retire or run for the Senate. Open seats in any of those districts would create real Democratic opportunities.

California Republican Rep. Ken Calvert’s surprisingly narrow win in 2008 obviously makes him a target, though his district certainly continues to lean Republican.

And Republicans such as Reps. Don Young (Alaska), Erik Paulsen (Minn.), Michele Bachmann (Minn.), Leonard Lance (N.J.) Henry Brown (S.C.) and Dave Reichert (Wash.), all of whom had close contests last year, have to prepare for another possible Democratic assault.

Finally, DCCC automated telephone calls into districts currently held by GOP Reps. Charlie Dent (Pa.), Judy Biggert (Ill.) and Thaddeus McCotter (Mich.) reflect Democratic strategists’ views that those districts are either already Democratic enough or are becoming Democratic enough to present the party with new opportunities.

But while Democrats still have opportunities in 2010, Republicans, on the defensive for the past two cycles, finally should have more.

The upcoming special election to fill Democratic Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand’s open House seat in Upstate New York gives the National Republican Congressional Committee a golden opportunity to begin a mini-comeback. Republicans must win that special election in what had been a reliably Republican seat until Gillibrand upset a GOP incumbent in 2006.

The party also has a handful of good opportunities in districts that it shouldn’t have lost, even considering the environment. Democratic freshmen Reps. Bobby Bright (Ala.) and Tom Perriello (Va.) look to be at particular risk if Republicans can unite behind strong challengers and if turnout among key Democratic groups (blacks and younger voters, in these two cases) drops during the midterms, as expected.

Democratic Reps. Travis Childers (Miss.), Walt Minnick (Idaho) and Frank Kratovil (Md.) also face serious problems given the conservative (and often Republican) natures of their districts. Even 10-term Rep. Chet Edwards (Texas), who has turned back stiff challenges in the past yet won with only 53 percent last year, would seem to be an obvious GOP target.

The NRCC faces plenty of hurdles in trying to reverse the GOP’s recent decline, but the sheer number of Republican districts now sending a Democrat to Congress provides the Republican campaign committee with more than enough opportunities to make certain that the party makes at least small gains in the House next year.

Another Republican net loss in the chamber — even a small one — would be devastating to party activists.


This column first appeared in Roll Call on March 2, 2009. 2009 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

DCCC Ad Campaign on Stimulus Ignores Defectors

By Nathan L. Gonzales

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is trying to turn up the heat on a number of House Republicans who voted against the stimulus bill, while turning a blind eye to a handful of Democratic Members who voted the exact same way.

Over the past two weeks, the DCCC has sent out a series of “hypocrisy alerts,” which highlight Republican lawmakers who voted against the stimulus bill but are allegedly “celebrating” the benefits of it in their districts.

On Tuesday, the DCCC also launched the third phase of its “Putting Families First” campaign, targeting a dozen Republicans who opposed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act by mounting a “major grass-roots campaign” against them that includes phone calls, e-mails and text messages.

“House Republicans can’t have it both ways. ... Americans will hold House Republicans accountable for ‘just saying no’ to the largest tax cut in American history and saving and creating three to four million jobs,” DCCC Chairman Chris Van Hollen (Md.) said in a news release. “We will hold accountable those Republicans who continue to vote in lockstep against President Obama’s economic recovery plan for the American people.”

But after six House Democrats voted identically to House Republicans on the stimulus, is the DCCC trying to have it both ways?

Democratic Reps. Bobby Bright (Ala.), Parker Griffith (Ala.), Walt Minnick (Idaho), Collin Peterson (Minn.), Gene Taylor (Miss.) and Heath Shuler (N.C.) opposed the initial House stimulus plan that passed in January, as well as the final version that was signed into law. All represent conservative districts, though only Bright, Griffith and Minnick are considered politically vulnerable in 2010.

House Republicans unanimously opposed both bills.

On Feb. 9, the DCCC launched the second phase of its effort by targeting seven GOP freshmen with automated telephone calls to “focus on the Republicans’ out of step priorities by putting partisan politics before the needs of the jobs in their districts,” according to the release.

The six House Democrats who opposed the stimulus voted against creating or saving 270,000 jobs in their states, according to the DCCC’s new Web site, recoveryforamerica.org, which was created to detail how the stimulus affects each state and to hold Republicans accountable. They also apparently voted against 8,670,000 families receiving the Making Work Pay tax credit, against 312,000 additional students receiving the college tax credit and against 1,225,000 children receiving the Child Tax Credit.

According to Democratic strategists, the difference is that for Republicans, it was a premeditated effort to obstruct the recovery at all costs, while for the Democrats, it was a principled vote that fit their district.

Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann, who represents Minnesota’s 6th district, was targeted during the first phase of the DCCC’s campaign on Feb. 2 because she voted against the stimulus bill. Meanwhile, Peterson represents the neighboring 7th district and voted against the bill as well.

Bachmann, who was one of 28 Republicans on the DCCC’s initial target list, earned a week’s worth of drive-time radio ads, telephone calls and e-mails from the DCCC for her vote, while Peterson maintained his chairmanship of the House Agriculture Committee without a whimper of discontent.

“I expected to catch hell about this,” Peterson said, according to the West Central Tribune. “Every single person that came up to me said they agreed with me.” According to Peterson, calls to his offices were 100-1 against the stimulus bill, which is even greater than the 9-1 ratio of calls against the bill that Bright told the media he received.

But their reports are a stark contrast to other media stories. Van Hollen senior adviser Doug Thornell distributed a Feb. 3 National Journal story titled “Frosh Finding Stimulus Popular at Home,” which talked specifically about the warm welcome Democratic Reps. Travis Childers (Miss.) and Betsy Markey (Colo.) were finding for the bill in their conservative districts.

Instead of making district-by-district evaluations, the DCCC appears to be simply sowing the seeds in the 2010 playing field.

The latest list of Democratic targets includes a mix of usual suspects (such as Washington Rep. Dave Reichert, Illinois Rep. Mark Kirk and Pennsylvania Reps. Jim Gerlach and Charlie Dent), incumbents that had surprisingly close races last cycle (including California Reps. Ken Calvert and Dan Lungren, and Michigan Rep. Thaddeus McCotter), and longer-shot GOP-held seats that Democrats are trying to pull into the competitive category (including those of Illinois Rep. Judy Biggert, Delaware Rep. Mike Castle, Missouri Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer and the open seat in Florida’s 12th district). The DCCC threw National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Pete Sessions (Texas) onto the target list for good measure.

After winning more than 50 seats in the House over the past four years, Democrats believe the stimulus vote is an opportunity to create takeover opportunities that are harder to come by these days. And even though the committee’s mission is to maintain and expand its majority, it doesn’t change the fact that the DCCC’s rhetoric about the stimulus bill doesn’t match with its leaders’ public lack of concern about Democratic defections.

“We fully recognize and understand that with 256, 257 Members spread out across the country ... we’ll have a situation where people don’t always agree,” Thornell said in a Los Angeles Times story, which also noted that Democrats made no effort to woo Minnick, who agonized over whether to support the stimulus package on the first vote.

Not only were Minnick and some of his Democratic colleagues given a pass, but he, Bright and Griffith were added this week to the DCCC’s “Frontline” program, which is designed to boost vulnerable incumbents through fundraising and outreach, on the same day the committee unveiled its third round of attacks on Republicans.

Overall, the impact and effectiveness of the DCCC’s campaign is unclear. No one can accurately predict the political climate for the midterm election that is 20 months away. And more importantly, no one knows whether a vote against the stimulus bill will be an asset or liability when November 2010 rolls around.

In addition, the Putting Families First campaign looks to be designed to gain the most amount of media attention by expending the fewest dollars possible, rather than persuading a large number of voters in targeted districts.

E-mailing the DCCC’s list of 3 million voters costs nothing, to say nothing of its ability to affect Republican incumbents’ behavior. And a week’s worth of “targeted” radio ads during drive time is an inexpensive endeavor.

Rounds of 100,000 person-to-person phone calls sound impressive, but at 75 cents per call (according to one Democratic consultant), it’s not particularly expensive, and the automated calls only cost about 8 cents per call.

The “national initiative” has also been strategically rolled out in waves to generate a new round of stories each time, creating a sense of momentum, even when the dollars behind the deeds are minimal. Cost is an important factor to a committee still carrying more than $16 million in debt from the past cycle.

Democrats aren’t the only ones trying to take advantage of the stimulus vote. Last week, the NRCC launched a television ad against freshman Rep. Tom Perriello (D-Va.) and automated phone calls against 10 other Democrats, “in the next phase of holding Democrats accountable for supporting a pork-laden so-called ‘stimulus’ package,” according to a release.


This story first appeared in Roll Call on February 26, 2009. 2009 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.