That Which Raises Money (And That Which Does Not)
By Leon H Wolf Posted in Republicans — Comments (47) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
There's good news and bad news to be had for the GOP in terms of national election news today. Normally, you'd get this stuff from Adam C, but his school is trying to kill him, too, so you get me instead.
2006 Breakdown below the fold:
House of Representatives 2006
The good news first. The NRCC is outraising their Democrat counterparts by about a 2-1 margin. Additionally, the Cash on Hand margin is even wider, where Republicans hold a margin that's closer to 5-1. The even better news for the House Republicans is that the Democrats simply do not have enough competitive races in GOP-held districts to make a serious dent in the Republican control of the house. According to the Cook Report there are still only 28 competitive races in the house this year - 17 in Republican held districts and 11 in Democrat held districts. Thus, in order to flip control of the House, Democrats would have to hold all 11 of their seats, and pick up 15 of the 17 Republican held seats. In other words, they'd have to win 93% of the competitive races in the country to accomplish that. Stuart Rothenberg finds 37 competitive races, with 26 Republicans being forced to defend competitive territory, compared to 11 Democrats. Yet still, the Democrats would have to win 70 per cent of the competitive elections to flip control of the House. With 1/5 less money. For a little perspective, the Democrats have not come close to winning 50 per cent of the competitive elections since 2000.
Now of course, there are a lot of Democrat hopefuls who draw hope from the watershed election of 1994. As much as I admire optimistic thinking, the historical parallels really don't hold water, for a number of different reasons.
First of all, in 1994 the playing field was much, much wider, in terms of the "middle" of American politics. Here, Adam would probably disagree with me, but the number of persuadable voters in any given election (regardless of the political figures involved) is gradually shrinking. By contrast, in 1994, the Cook report listed 106 competitive seats, 95 of which were controlled by Democrats. Also, within "competitive" races, there is the subcategory of "toss-up" races, which could really go either way. In 1994, there were 73 toss-up races. Today, according to Cook, there are seven.
"But wait!" The Democrats say. "There is broad-based dissatisfaction with Congress!" This, to a certain extent, is true. However, this is not necessarily bad news for the incumbent party, as Democrat analysts like to assume.
The truth is that bashing Congress is something of a national pastime, and low polling numbers for Congress in general are neither new nor alarming. We all love to hate Congress, but we generally manage to like the critters who represent us. It's the rest of the bums out there that are the problem. The only time incumbents sense true danger is when the people start to say that they'd be willing to replace their congresscritters - and so far that's not happening. In the same Pew poll mentioned above, by a 57-25 per cent margin, voters still want to send their representative back to Congress.
What the Democrat analysts that I've seen thus far have managed to systematically ignore is that the revolution of 1994 (and, to a smaller extent, subsequent years) was about much more than the United States House and Senate. During the years from 1994-2000, the Republicans also took control of significant numbers of State Legislatures as well - leading to a more favorable redrawing of districts that I think will guarantee a Republican majority in the house at least until 2012, barring some major catasrtophic and unforeseen event.
This early in the race, however, money is generally the best predictor of performance, and the NRCC's efforts thus far bode well for continued GOP control of the House for 2006. My prediction at this point is GOP +3 in the house.
U. S. Senate 2006
Now, to the bad news, and it's all about the other chamber of Congress.
First, the money situation for the Republicans in the Senate, if not quite as bad as the situation for the Democrats. The DSCC narrowly outraised the NRSC last quarter, and currently holds about a 2-1 advantage in CoH. These numbers are not devastating, but they are bad, and if they do not improve soon, could bode serious problems for the continued Republican control of the Senate.
Speaking of things that Elizabeth Dole does not do well, recruitment on the Republican side has been nothing short of atrocious. To recap briefly, Johanns (NE), Hoeven (ND), Giuliani (NY), Capito (WV) and Rossi (WA) all took a pass on running in 2006, instantly turning 5 elections that would have been "toss-ups" into either "lean Democrat" or "solid Democrat." When the scale of elections goes statewide, the money starts to matter progressively less, and the person running starts to matter more. The bottom line is that there are a lot of Senate seats that ought to be at the very least in play for Republicans that aren't right now.
Add to that the fact that Republicans are defending two very tough seats in PA and RI, and are facing a very stiff challenge from top-flight candidates in places like TN, and the picture for the Republicans in the Senate look considerably worse. My prediction at this point for the Senate is GOP -2.
Overall Analysis
There are, I believe, a number of highly relevant factors that are leading to the growing disparity between prospects in the House and in the Senate.
In the first place, fundraising is an enterprise that is primarily accomplished by party faithful. Therefore, to the extent that a particular portion of a party's elected officials advance the interests of the party rank-and-file, their fundraising numbers should expect to go up.
While the house as a whole has not exactly covered itself in glory, they have done a much better job on the whole of advancing both the social and small-government interests of the Republican Party. The RSC is a highly visible and organized entity within the House that is sticking to core principles and giving hope to the party faithful that some elements of the GOP are still responsive to conservative values. These efforts from the RSC have been highly publicized, and there is real hope that when the caucus meets again at the turn of the year, Mike Pence or someone like him could benefit from the caucus shakeup precipitated by the DeLay indictment. Added to that, the House has not really done anything that has provoked outright anger or hostility from the base, and their fundraising moves along at its usual pace.
The Senate, on the other hand, has been doing a disastrous job from a PR standpoint within their own party. The flip-flop-flip from the party standard bearer on embryo destruction left a sour taste in the mouth of social conservatives, and the embarrassing behavior of many Republican Senators vis-a-vis pork has cheesed off the fiscons. However, the most disastrous event of all was the embarrassment of "The Deal," which provoked an organized campaign by party activists to shut off funding to the NRSC until they began behaving like Republicans. At the time, the move was pooh-poohed, but it appears that party activists are taking out their frustration specifically on Senate fundraising efforts, for the host of reasons mentioned above.
The bottom line is that the House is making efforts to advance Republican interests, and are much better off for it. The Senate is not, and they are suffering. We'll see how it all shakes out over the next 12.5 months.
« Burn the Witch — Comments (18) | Tom Coburn on the Senate Floor — Comments (128) »
That Which Raises Money (And That Which Does Not) 47 Comments (0 topical, 47 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
they will really pay a price. They can't go against Bush on the nonsense that she is not qualified and expect to look good doing it.
When they will just end up giving it to RINO incumbents. There are way too many Senators that cannot be counted on to support even the most fundamental of party platform planks. And they all get support from NRSC come election time.
On the contrary, IF any Republican Senators decide to oppose the Harriet Miers nomination, they will be hailed as heroes among the conservative base. The Miers nomination wont be an issue, because conservatives are so thoroughly disgusted with Bush for picking such an unqualified candidate that any Rep. Senator who went against her would find themselves greatly rewarded.
It all depends on the hearings TBone, it all depends on the hearings......
If she comes across as a lightweight, look for "No" votes from at least Coburn and Brownback in committee, maybe Sessions too.
It'll be interesting to see what the Dems do.
President Bush needs to ask himself if the Miers nomination is worth the damage it is doing to the base and the party as a whole. He should withdraw Miers or discretely ask here to drop out.
He could name any number of better candidates and it would give Senate Republicans a chance to get behind a conspicuous conservative nominee. This might get the base behind the Senate Republicans in a meaningful way.
some of the conservative base once flirted with Perot in their desire to "buck" their suitor Bush 41. Hasty marriage proposal thoughts embarrassing to think about now, yes? I would think much less of senators bucking their own President now.
It is amateurish strategy to divide oneself in the face of the enemy. Even when acceptable, evenly matched forces must unite again at the point of attack.
This is RedState, and I assure you most of us are conservative base. The base is as divided here as everywhere else on Miers.
Base voters who are out-of-state or district do not benefit the Senators who buck the President unless they do more than cheer (send ammo $$).
The 1st principle of wars & campaigns is unity of command. That means throwing our weight behind 1 goal-setting leader, not 55 Senators each going his own way.
I hope more liberals continue to go their own way vice unifying.
Has there been any polling data yet pitting Ford up against the generic GOP candidate? I know such polls are worthless at this point, but I think it'd be interesting nonetheless.
Ford could be tricky, especially if there is an anti-GOP sentiment next year. He has made some moves to establish conservative credentials, most notably voting for the Federal Marriage Amendment. Now of course, it could be argued that it was an empty, meaningless vote since Ford knew that the Amendment would not pass. The real test would have been how he would vote if it actually had a chance to pass, but that won't stop Ford and the Dems from running ads touting his vote for marriage and Tennessee values.
I'm not sure how much play they can get out of it now, but the GOP can still play the Sup Court card against Ford, since a vote for him is a defacto vote for all of the leftwing social and cultural positions he claims to oppose.
I realize that virtually everyone here is the conservative base, and I also realize that a strong united front is what is best to take on ones opponent. However I am not going to follow lock-step with a leader who I feel has abandoned core Republican principles just to beat the opposition. Now there will be many who will take an opposing viewpoint from mine, and that is fine, it is their God given right to do so. However I will not allow myself to support a nominee whom I see to be completely unqualified. I will not support a Congress that recklessly spends money, abandoning the most basic Republican principle of a limited, fiscally responsible government. I want a united front as badly as anyone, but not at the cost of core Republican values.
perfection can become the enemy of good.
But I understand your point.
I expect them to nail her to the wall. They've only been keeping quiet this long because they love to see the fighting on our side.
- They can beat her (this by itself is reason enough for them to oppose her).
- There is way too much evidence out there already of her anti-abortion views.
- They think they will seriously hurt the president if he is defeated or forced to withdraw the candidate (I have my doubts...)
Oh, right, he isn't running. Well go back a conservative that can win. Brownback, nope, has no statistically relevant chance of getting elected POTUS than I or you do. I admire your principles. But you better start humming Hail to Hillary.
kiss the opportunity for a conservative replacement nominee goodbye.
...on the Senate front.
Oakland Co Sheriff Mike Bouchard is now strongly considering getting back into the race against Sen. Debbie Stabebnow. Bouchard was in the race, but had a health issue. Now with a clean bill of health from his doc, and plenty of time to make it happen, is poised to get back in. That's a big big PLUS for the GOP. Bouchard is a proven vote getter and winner, from the most important swing real estate in the state. This recruitment would be a big win for the NRSC and for Sen. Dole, and would be a very big win for the MI GOP.
Hillary is perhaps one of the most hated people in politics. I doubt seriously if she could win a single Southern state, and mid-western states such as the all-important Ohio would be extremely difficult for her to win. However, despite all of that, if it came down to winning by throwing away the principles that make me a Republican, what exactly is the point? Obviously I am never going to vote for the queen of darkness, and who says the Republican nominee HAS to be Brownback? There are any number of good conservative Republicans who could take on Hillary (if she wins the nomination) and defeat her soundly.
..isn't "nonsense." It's an ineluctable fact. This woman isn't even remotely competent to sit on the Supreme Court, and I doubt that any information that will be disclosed over the course of her confirmation hearings will dispel the public's initial impression of her.
a quick google news search gets you this poll, hot off the presses:
"Hillary Clinton has a rating of 56% favorable and 37% unfavorable overall, and her unfavorable rating is 31% among independents."
(for comparison, "Tom DeLay has a rating of 16% favorable and 45% unfavorable.")
as setforth in the Constitution or other governing document? Didn't think so. So, your "qualifications" are just your opinions. I didn't vote for you for POTUS, nor did 63,000,000 others that you would have needed, so your opinions, and those of the other posters here, may be interesting but are totally irrelevant.
...it's a conflict of interest, imo.
Hail to Feingold. If he can keep her sleaze machine from throwing crud at him... he will get the nomination.
Most people fear the reality of her winning than her trying to win. She's going to run quite poorly when the time comes around. We are just worried it will be a coronation rather than a contest. In a contest for the Dem nomination... I bet she loses.
See Federalist #76.
I wonder how these Miers acolytes felt about John Mitchell. After all, President Nixon knew him personally. Isn't that good enough to be AG?
(Prolonged eye roll.)
"There are, I believe, a number of highly relevant factors that are leading to the growing disparity between prospects in the House and in the Senate..."
Yes. For example, you can't gerrymander the s--- out of Senate seats like you can in the House (see FL, PA, TX, NY - heck, just about any state). A state is a state is a state, so you can't pull any GIS tricks and end up with senate districts that look anything like this or this or this or for memory's sake, my old college district, this ugly monstrosity. Partisan hackery and racial redistricting leading to non-competitive districts...ahh, the smell of democracy on fire.
Really. It's remarkable how you can manage indignation at this with a straight face.
Unless, that is, you didn't pay any attention to politics BEFORE 1990. In which case it's not all that remarkable, I guess.
But it IS still hilarious.
I didn't forget it at all:
What the Democrat analysts that I've seen thus far have managed to systematically ignore is that the revolution of 1994 (and, to a smaller extent, subsequent years) was about much more than the United States House and Senate. During the years from 1994-2000, the Republicans also took control of significant numbers of State Legislatures as well - leading to a more favorable redrawing of districts that I think will guarantee a Republican majority in the house at least until 2012, barring some major catasrtophic and unforeseen event.
Just because you ignored it doesn't mean I missed it.
in control or saying it's any worse now than it ever was (actually, it arguably was quite worse, back when districts didn't have to have proportional populations, before Baker v. Carr), I'm just pointing out the continual absurdity that passes as modern congressional boundaries. They are the obvious reason why you're not seeing more competitive House races. If this strikes you as too obvious to mention, so be it. But it doesn't mean it's not ridiculous.
you're right, I missed it. Let's say I just provided some links for graphic analysis then :)
QUITE thoroughly in another diary :)
I'm sure the president could have found someone else confirmable OTHER than the person who gave him legal advice on some of very cases she might be called adjudicate...
That's the definition of "conflict of interest" .... she could be called as a witness!! LOL
Are there any primary challengers to the Republican offenders, aside from Chafee's challenger (and how's he doing anyway)?
...or Jerome Corsi.
sigh
I've just about exhausted myself on Miers criticism. Let's hope that cooler heads prevail.
FWIW, here is my latest Senate round-up from Oct. 16. My prediction at this point was -1 to +1. There are too many incumbents and not enough "opposite-color" opportunities on either side for a big shift to happen. In 2004, only one incumbent Senator lost (Daschle). Almost all of the other new Senators were Republicans from red states winning where Democrats retired. That leaves MN, MD, NJ, TN, and VT as the open seats and PA and RI as "blue" states with an R running and threatened. What hurts is that FL, ND, WV, and NE are not as close as they should be although FL and NE are not out of the question.
In the House, we will lose seats. I can't really see a way around that. We may not lose many because of the gerrymanders on both sides around the country, but we will probably lose 1-5 seats, IMHO.
Let me pile on the "It's not 1994" bandwagon. Here is my why it's different top 3 list:
Good 1994 backgrounder from wikipedia.
- In 1994, there were a bunch of Dems in Republican seats across the South. Places like OK had 4 Ds and 2 Rs before 1994 and then 6-0 for the Rs afterwards (it's now 4-1 for the Rs after losing a seat in 2000). That re-alignment of the South explains about half of the 1994 win.
- Of the 54 seats gained by Rs in 1994, 20 were open seats. There are not that many open, vulnerable seats for Ds to win this go-round.
- Dems aren't looking good in the polls. This has been overlooked because the President and Republicans are polling poorly too. But when asked about the Dem Party alone, they have gotten no bounce from the Reps decline in approval. So even if some voters are ready to throw their bum out, they may not be ready to hire the other guy applying for the job. I think this dynamic actually helped the President in 2004 more than others think. There was more than 50% of the country willing to send him home, but some of them were not willing to take the new guy over him.
Overall, this is not 1994. There are not a slew of northeastern seats full of converted Dems (the corrolary to Reagan Democrats) waiting for a reason to toss their legacy Republican for a new Democrat. There are not a slew of open seats (or even competitive seats for that matter) for Ds to target. So even if they get the last part of the 1994 equation (winning over most independents), they still can only go so far. At most they win the House back by a few votes which would be a +20 or so and practically impossible. But even that is nowhere in the +54 neighborhood of 1994.
I see a -1 to -5 for Rs in the House as of right now with less than 10 seats switching party.
It depends on how she does in the hearings. If she does poorly, then there really isn't a win for Republican Senators no matter how they vote. Either they look like they are rubber-stamping someone because the President likes her, or they look like backstabbers who will turn on their leader when he most needs them to back him.
If Miers hits a homerun in the hearings, then it's a different story. The game plan will revert to what was originally planned: a showdown between Bush and the Democrats, with the Democrats looking like they are further left than most Americans.
After reading the news and reviews of her answers to the written questionaire that the Senate Judiciary Committee sent her, I'm finding myself more willing to bet that her hearings will be more of a strikeout than a homerun. Republican Senators are going to lose on this one.
I'm not sure if Bouchard would have that much traction, not with the number of heavyweights that have supported Keith Butler. Bouchard might help with the Reagan Democrat vote in Oakland and Macomb counties, but Butler helps pry a lot of black votes away from the Democrats.
Plus, the primary would be messy.
What did 1994 look in 1993?
The Contract with America was introduced six weeks before the 1994 Congressional elections.
The GOP in 1993 was not considered to be a threat.
I know all good political groopies have to speculate all the time about this and that, but in reality what happens in 1994 will determine the election.
A viberant economy, resolution in Iraq, political scandles in the rearview mirror and peace in the GOP will result in GOP good times.
A crappy economy, Iraq going crazy, political operatives on trial and in prison, and civil war in the GOP will result in Dem good times.
There is a lot riding on the Dems being stupid. In any game, where the outcome is based on the stuipidity of the opponent, the results are seldom what is anticipated.
...but judging from the scaling back of the Senator-meetings, that seems like a fool's hope.
Republicans need to circle the wagons, folks. And what I mean is to support the President, even if you disagree with him. Support Miers, even if you disagree with her and support embattled candidates in key Senate races. We need to get wise to the Democrats tacticts and stop shooting ourselves in the foot. They are enjoying this mess with Miers way too much for my comfort level.
is that there was a law passed in congress that dramatically reduced pension benefits for congressmen.
In order to qualify for the old (good) plan, you had to retire prior to the 1994 elections.
Because of that you had a HUGE number of open seats and it was this in combination with the anti-clinton factor that swept the GOP into power.
Yes the Contract with America was a huge part of that but it was really only a means to leverage the huge opportunity afforded by the number of open seats.
...but just in case anyone is reading this thread still:
What the Democrat analysts that I've seen thus far have managed to systematically ignore is that the revolution of 1994 (and, to a smaller extent, subsequent years) was about much more than the United States House and Senate.
I agree, and that's why I think 2006 could still be a big year for Dems in the House.
Satisfaction with the President may play a major role, provided Bush's numbers are still this low in November 2006. I apologize, but I'm not at the office and don't have online access, but one of the hill papers (I believe Roll Call) this week had a big story on Presidents' approval ratings and seats gained/lost in midterm elections. 1994 was just one example of low approval ratings leading to big gains for the opposite party, with higher approval ratings leading to few seats lost or a few gained like in 1998 and 2002. They had a graph for the story and the numbers correlate nearly perfect together going back to (I think) the 60's, or perhaps later. Might be something to consider.
(If anyone would like to discuss, hopefully I'll check back on this soon, but the Hawkeyes are on ABC, and it's not often I get to watch them here in Arlington without having to go to a bar with ESPN GamePlan)
Article out from MIRS today says that if Bouchard gets in Michigan House Speaker Craig DeRoche will unendorse Butler and get back behind Bouchard. Terri Lynn Land and Pete Hoekstra are reported to jump behind him too. Should be an interesting primary if Bouchard gets back in.
The WSJ conducted polling in August and polling in September - right now they have a Bryant-Ford matchup at:
Bryant (R) 51.2%
Ford (D) 40%
and Hilleary-Ford at:
Hilleary (R) 49.6%
Ford (D) 41.2%
No word on Ford-Corker, who has raised the most cash by far of the GOP hopefuls, but who also has the lowest name ID.
Link #1: Go to the WSJ page and scroll down to Battleground States Poll -Can't link to it, it's a javascript popup.
Please list ANY constitutional experience HM has. Do you want a podiatrist to do heart surgery? Constitutional law is a far cry from corporate law. (Btw, White House Counsel is not a constitutional law position).
Back a conservative that can win?
Bush beat Mc in the 2000 primaries and was seen as the conservative. He then went on to beat Gore.
Remember Reagan ("arch" conservative hero)? Bush Sr. won on his coat tails. When he lost it was because he abandoned conservative principles.
Clinton was the most moderate of the 1992 dem primaries. Liberal dems always lose big to any republican.
Allen Prob hads the best chance (read conservative).
Let's circle the wagons around conservative principles. Maybe you're a republican first or a Bush fan first, but I'm a conservative first. I didn't leave him, he left me. Remember, he works for you, not the other way around.
Senator Dole and the NRSC have recruited top tier candidates in several races in spite of the bad political environment and without much help from the White House. The top recruit in Nebraska and the first candidate you mention Mike Johanns was taken out of the Senate contention when President Bush appointed him Secretary of Agriculture. As for Capito, Hoeven, and Rossi, I've read several news reports recounting the numerous times that Dole met with each of them to discuss a Senate run. Looking at the people who passed on running for Senate is only half of the picture, especially considering the caliber of candidates she has recruited to run for Senate in several states.
Mike McGavick (WA), Michael Steele (MD), Mark Kennedy (MN), Tom Kean, Jr (NJ), Peter Ricketts (NE), Richard Tarrant (VT), and potentially Mike Bouchard (MI) and Gale Catlett (WV) are all big recruiting wins for Dole and the NRSC. They have managed to recruit candidates to challenge vulenrable Democrats and to run in blue state open seats. In addition, they have managed to clear the field in many states so that our candidates are already running general election campaigns. We have a real chance to pick up some Dem seats in 2006 and a lot of that credit goes to Dole.
on Senator (but more importantly, former Governor) Allen as the conservative to unite behind. I already have as early support is multiplied over time.
Still, if conservatives really unite behind another, I will shift my support to the other.
Ditto shifting from Harriett to our yet-unnamed Supreme candidate.
Just because a given respondent would vote to reelect their member of Congress right now doesn't mean they're satisfied. I take myself as an example: I'd rather have ethically-challenged, speech-challenged, morally-challenged Jim Moran as my congressman than any of the sorry guys or gals the Republicans in my district toss out. And yet, I'm exceedingly dissatisfied with him. If the GOP put up a decent candidate, Jim's reelect numbers might well take a tumble. And that's in a solid Dem district. The same thing could happen in lean-R districts across the country, with a resultant widening of the playing field.
So for me, the macro environment is there if the Dems take advantage. It's all a question of the micro--whether Republican-favored redistricting, R candidate quality, R open seats (which there could still be more of), and other factors will be enough to offset a Dem macro advantage. Right now, and here's the part where I agree with you, I think it will be.