In Monday’s paper the Times gives a relatively detailed run-down of the GOP’s decision-making on which races to write off and which to pour money into in the final three weeks of the campaign. The topline is that the national party has decided not to spend any more money on Mike DeWine in Ohio. In addition to DeWine, they are expecting Santorum, Burns and Chafee also to go down to defeat. If those assumptions are right, that leaves Democrats needing two more pick-ups to take control of the senate, with Missouri, Tennessee and Virginia, probably in that order, being the most likely places to get them. (Of course, that’s assuming that Bob Menendez doesn’t lose in New Jersey. That seems more likely than not; but it’s certainly not a sure thing.)
That’s the GOP’s side of the equation. How about the Democrats? As we noted a few days ago, since September 29th, a whole swath of Republican seats have started trending in the Democrats’ direction. And one big question over the next twenty days is whether Democrats will be able to get money into that batch of races which looked safely Republican a month ago but now look up for grabs or at least in contention.
Here’s a passage from Charlie Cook’s latest overview of the campaign …
On a conference call today, James Carville suggested that the Democratic Party should expand beyond just the top targeted races. He believes the party should help fund previously ignored Democratic challengers in second- and third-tier districts–the next 30 to 50 Republican-held seats–to fully capitalize on this environment and help those candidates maximize their chances of winning. Carville went as far as to suggest Democrats go to the bank and borrow $5 million. If I were them, I’d make it $10 million and put $500,000 each of these 20 districts.
This is a nice problem to have. But it’s still a problem. Normally at this phase of the cycle you’re triaging races, pulling the plug on ones that didn’t pan out and focusing money on races where wins still seem possible. But the playing field only seems to be expanding.
Do the Dems’ have the money on hand to fully exploit the situation? I don’t really know the answer. I don’t follow the money ins-and-outs closely enough.
But what I do want to do over the next two weeks is focus in on this new group of races moving into the competitive category. I’m not a vet like Cook. But I’ve been covering elections long enough to know that in every cycle there are bunch of campaigns out there yammering on about how they’re really in a winnable race and that they could win if only this or that party committee realize how close they and give them some money. This time, though, some of them, and possibly a lot of them, are going to be right.
But which ones?
In no particular order, but just races that I’ve got my eye on this week …
New York 20: Sweeney (R) v. Gillibrand (D)
Ohio 2: Schmidt (R) v. Wulshin (D)
CA 11: Pombo (R) v. McNerney (D)
WA 8: Reichert (R) v. Burner (D)
CO 4: Musgrave (R) v. Paccione (D)
NY 19: Kelly (R) v. Hall (D)
You’re out there on the ground. What are you seeing? What I’m interested in here are not the races where Democratic challengers now seem likely to win. I’m also not looking for those that still look like a longshot. I’m trying to put together a list of those which looked like a longshot six weeks ago but now seem possible, ones where the Republican incumbent is still clearly favored but perhaps not for long.
I’d like to put this question out there for observers and activists in the district and also the folks in the party committees, 527s, et al. Needless to say, if you’re dishing some inside knowledge, your identity and specifics of what you tell us will be held in the strictest confidence.
And one other thing. At this point in the campaign ads get run or yanked at lightning speed. They may come from the candidates, the party committees, independent expenditure groups, etc. When you see a new ad running in your state or district, particularly if there’s something new about it or you see it running a lot, let us know. What’s the ad say? Who’s identified as the advertising party? How heavy does the rotation seem? If you can record it and send us a clip, even better.
We do a lot of traditional reporting here at TPM and we keep an eye on the money drops as reported in the public filings. But our real advantage at TPM, in terms of keeping our reporting ahead of the pack, is our engaged readership. Tell us what you’re seeing. Let us know the details. We read all your emails and they’re critical in helping us cover this race.
