Latest Committee Moves

The general pattern is holding so far. The DCCC is spending all of its money on media buys, while the NRCC continue to go heavy with polling and mail. The DCCC dropped more than $1M yesterday, mostly on very top-tier districts where Democrats are already ahead according to available polling. The NRCC continues to focus on seemingly less top-tier districts. Is this another "fire-wall" strategy we are seeing from the NRCC, where they de-emphasize the top tier, concede several seats, aim to stop the bleeding in the second tier, and focus on preventing a national landslide? See for yourself at Political Money Line.

DCCC: (all media buys unless otherwise noted)
  • NM-01: $211K. They spent $9K alone on producing the ad here. It better look good.
  • IA-01: $123K. About one third of these ads are positive.
  • AZ-08: $115K. Is this really necessary? Giffords leads by 19 points, and wingnut Graf has little money.
  • IN-08: $114K
  • PA-10: $96K. Half of these ads appear to be positive. This is also a lot of money for this media market, which is one of the cheapest in the country.
  • WI-08: $84K
  • IN-02: $80K
  • NY-24: $97K. About one-fifth of this is mail.
  • IN-09: $73. Half of these ads appear to be positive.
  • VA-02: $64K
  • WA-08: $28K of mail
  • OH-15: $17K of mail
  • GA-12: $12K. This must be a radio or cable ad if it is only $12K, and $1K in production. It is also the first drop of defensive money I have seen the DCCC spend in months.
NRCC
  • OH-18: $32K of mail
  • MN-06: $24K of mail
  • CO-04: $11K of mail
  • New surveys in AZ-08, CA-11, CO-04, CT-02, CT-04, NV-03, NY-24, OH-02, OH-15 and WI-08. Ten more surveys today in Republican-held districts for another $140K. We have not seen the results of any of these polls. I guess they are still willing to spend some money in OH-02.
  • Is the DCCC aware of how much money the NRCC is dumping into CA-11? They are over $200K now.
NRSC
  • MO-Sen: $821K. Firewall indeed
Fascinating as always.

Tags: 2006 elections, cactus, dccc, Heather Wilson, House 2006, NM-01, NRCC, Patricia Madrid (all tags)

Comments

39 Comments

Re: Latest Committee Moves

Is this another "fire-wall" strategy we are seeing from the NRCC, where they de-emphasize the top tier, concede several seats, aim to stop the bleeding in the second tier, and focus on preventing a national landslide?

Yes.

by Hesiod Theogeny 2006-09-21 11:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Latest Committee Moves

$9k to produce an ad? That seems cheap. What do these things normally cost?

There seems to be a good argument for spending MORE on production, since that's where marginal returns might be the highest. Of course that assumes cost is correlated with quality, something that may or may not be true.

by OtH 2006-09-21 11:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Latest Committee Moves

Maybe it is a good idea with a low budget.  Best of both worlds.  I wonder how much it cost to shoot the video of the guy putting AK47 rounds into dummies?  Not much I bet.

by Robert P 2006-09-21 11:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Latest Committee Moves

But the ad was inaccurate.   I should think more money is ok if it helps get it right.

by Mimikatz 2006-09-21 12:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Latest Committee Moves

No, it wasn't inaccurate. The fact remains that George Allen explicitly voted against money being appropriated for equipment for National Guard and Army Reserve soldiers. The amendment may not have stated armored vests specifically, at least in the title, but that's irrelevant: it is and was well-known that the Army Reserve and National Guard were not provided with enough equipment to operate effectively in Iraq. George Allen voted to ignore this problem.

That FactCheck.org states that the Pentagon already approrpriated money for the vests is fallacious. We know for a fact that up until almost a year ago that U.S. troops were buying third-party protection for themselves because the government had failed to do so.

FactCheck.org's definition of "fact" seems to be far too narrowly focused here.

by Covin 2006-09-21 01:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Latest Committee Moves

It is pretty cheap. General rule of thumb is %10 of your media budget should go to production, though less with large budgets and more with small budgets.

by dantheman 2006-09-21 11:54AM | 0 recs
Still nothing in NC...

It makes me wonder:

1. Have they given up on Taylor (or does he have enough money of his own, probably that).

2. Does anyone know what the hell is going on in NC-08?

by Robert P 2006-09-21 11:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Latest Committee Moves

Off topic. how do I put links in my posts and diares. Any help would be much appreciated.

by Forward with Feingold 2006-09-21 11:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Latest Committee Moves

kos has the answers to everything...links, block quotes, pictures, video, etc

by aiko 2006-09-21 03:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Latest Committee Moves

thank you.

by Forward with Feingold 2006-09-21 11:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Latest Committee Moves

< a href = quote www.yahoo.com quote > text < /a href >

by Forward with Feingold 2006-09-21 11:45AM | 0 recs
Re: off-topic curiosity

what in the world don't you like about Jeremy Bentham?

by Christopher Walker 2006-09-22 08:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Latest Committee Moves

Have either of the committees spent money in TX-22 or TX-14?

by Richard Morrison 2006-09-21 11:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Latest Committee Moves
I've seen the NRCC conduct a poll in TX-22. That's it for either side in either district, at elst in the last three months.
by Chris Bowers 2006-09-21 12:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Latest Committee Moves

by Richard Morrison 2006-09-21 11:55AM | 0 recs
Positive? Why any positive ads?

Run attack ads.   Call the Republican opponent a coward who is soft on terrorism.   Tell the voters if they elect the Republican they will all be killed by "tear-ists" in the next 2 years, and the Republican will run up the white flag.   This sleaze seems to work for the Republicans.  Fight fire with fire.  

Negative work.

by dpANDREWS 2006-09-21 12:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Latest Committee Moves

The R's appear to have conceded AZ-08, IA-01, CO-07, TX-22, maybe PA-06.  They can afford to lose as many as 10-12 and still claim victory because they held the House.  The DCCC should spend in CA-11, CO-04, and all the contested OH and PA races where the Dem Gov candidates are outpolling the R's by a wide margin, esp OH-02 and PA-10.  We still need to be spreading the field.

by Mimikatz 2006-09-21 12:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Latest Committee Moves

I agree with you and Chris on this vis-a-vis AZ-08.  This one's in the bag.  The whole world, including most realistic Republicans in Arizona, know Giffords is the winner.  

DCCC:  stop spending money here.  Perhaps Ellen Simon can use the $ if you are so hellbent on funding AZ races.  Or Harry Mitchell?  There's a thought.

by jgarcia 2006-09-21 02:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Latest Committee Moves

I agree that AZ is a good place for the DCCC to spend money.  Janet is going to cream Len Munsil and Jim Pederson is polling within 5 of Kyl.  I agree that Giffords seems pretty safe but we shouldn't get cocky about it.  Mitchell is a really great candidate and JD Hayworth is so full of crap.  The DCCC needs to start spending money in AZ-05 because Mitchell needs to be on TV.

by southwesternblue 2006-09-21 09:39PM | 0 recs
I wonder why

Are the Dems trying to put these races out of reach early? Or are they shoring up against slippage?

Steve

by stevehigh 2006-09-21 12:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Latest Committee Moves

Republicans announced a comfortable 25 point lead in NE-3 from an internal poll.  This is big news, I think, because Scott Kleeb did not figure as a likely pickup.  OTOH, many of the targets mentioned by the GOP seem to be drifting out of range.  John Spratt in SC shows a lead of over 30 points in an internal poll and his opponent won't even release his own numbers.  A 9/7 article from the Charlotte Observer on Spratt's webpage indicates that Republicans are conceding.  Chris Wakim, the purer than pure challenger to Alan Mollohan in WV suddenly has been caught stretching his resume.

by David Kowalski 2006-09-21 12:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Latest Committee Moves

But look at NE-01.  Cook just moved this one to Liewkly R from Safe R.

by Mimikatz 2006-09-21 04:02PM | 0 recs
Rahm Emanuel wants to take credit

for races we're going to win anyway (with or without his help) to bolster his bid for a leadership position next year. That explains his decisions in districts like AZ-08.

by Jim in Chicago 2006-09-21 12:47PM | 0 recs
Pombo CA-11: immigrants vote democratic

Are any funds being dedicated to Spanish speakers in this district? Interestingly, many of these spanish speakers live in the most conservative parts of the district.  They should be courted to offset the republican advantage.  

by jncamane 2006-09-21 01:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Pombo CA-11: immigrants vote democratic

No funds are being dedicated to Spanish speakers in this district because no funds are being dedicated to this district AT ALL by the DCCC. Nothing.

On the other hand, the NRCC has spent over $290,000 in CA-11 in the last two months.  As Bowers said on Monday, "I bet the DCCC would be targeting that seat more vigorously had their chosen candidate, Steve Filson, not been handily defeated by McNerney in the primary. The way they are treating McNerney is petty, disrespectful, and counter-productive."

by JDinCA 2006-09-21 01:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Pombo CA-11:

If Pombo survives in a close vote, Emanuel's pettiness in CA-11 should define his legacy, even if the Dems take the house.  The R's would not be not spending so much money here if they thought the seat was safe.

by hilltopper 2006-09-21 02:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Pombo CA-11: immigrants vote democratic

My suspicion is that the Dems believe that the top of the ticket (Angelides for Gov) is such a bust that he's putting uphill races like this and CA-04 out of reach.  

If Arnold was as unpopular now as he was in November, these races would be drawing much more support.

by danielj 2006-09-21 03:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Pombo CA-11: immigrants vote democratic

What a shame!  I would advise activist to spend time canvasing the "red" parts of the district looking for naturalized immigrants.  There are votes to be had in the valley!

by jncamane 2006-09-21 07:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Latest Committee Moves

Is anyone taking advantage of online advertising?  Seems like all only do TV and very little other media venues.  Running their commercials online would be a great way to hit voters, considering people are spending more and more time online.

by Scope441 2006-09-21 01:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Latest Committee Moves

Please elaborate and tell me exactly WHY you think online ads are effective.  Because I like cable TV but not internet.  Here's why:

1.  most people only absorb candidate advertsing unwillingly, i.e., they would never choose to spend their time watching a political ad

2.  the ones who WOULD choose to see an ad or who would be the target person to actually click on an online ad and spend the next thiry to sixty seconds watching it are perhaps the least likely person to NEED to see the ad.  People who would see a candidate ad online and then click on it and spend the time to watch it, are probably the most informed voters and don't need to see the ad because they already know the candidates and oftentimes have already made up their minds.

3.  ads are to inform or persuade or both.  the most likely person to view an ad is already informed and persuaded so it either does no good because he/she backs the other candidate and won't budge, or it is preaching to the choir.

4.  TV ads are all about keeping an unwilling viewer captive and force-feeding him info and persuadable arguments about your candidate/position.

5.  anyone care to add to this or disagree and why?

Joe

by jgarcia 2006-09-21 02:45PM | 0 recs
Couple of possiblities

(1) Internet ads are super-cheap. No reason NOT to do them.

(2) If the target is early buzz, or mind-share among the politically active community.

by MetaData 2006-09-21 05:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Latest Committee Moves

I understand your point, however online advertising has come a LONG way.  

1. I agree, no one would willingly select to watch a political ad.  However, most content videos online that people watch (news videos, music videos etc,) now have a capability of running a 15-30 second commercial before the news/music video plays.  This forces the viewer to sit and watch the commercial.  I would argue that more people would actually see this than cable TV commercials.  Why?  Because TV ads are often zapped out by TiVo's and DVRs, people leave the room or channel during commercials.

2. Online is flexible and you can program different messages to different viewers.  An ad that is "electively" viewed can run messages that ask for donations, volunteers or GOTV.

3. Ads are to inform and persuade.  Why not run banner ads in people's email inboxes.  No body likes seeing the banner ads, but you can't help but notice them.  I probably spend more time checking my email than I do watching TV.  If every time I check my email a message about a candidate or issue appears, it is building awareness and knowledge.  "Vote NO on Prop. #3" or "George Felix Allen is a bigot."  Hard to miss these statements if they are displayed on my email inbox repeatedly.  I can't zap them out or leave the room like I can with TV.

4. I think in time most TV viewers will find ways to eliminate commercials or do other things during commercials, you can't do that with pre-roll videos like I mentioned above or with banners in popular areas such as email.  Talk about forcing people to watch or see things when they are doing the things they do most often.  This isn't to mention interactive ads that actually draw a viewer and have them interact with the advertisement.  

5. Did you know that online ads can be targeted in all kinds of ways?  You can now program ads by age, gender, ethnicity and geographically, just to name a few.  You can send different messages to different people.  For example, one message to soccer moms and another to NASCAR dads.  One to older folks about Social Security and another to young adults reminding them to vote.

I can go on if anyone wants me too. =)

Anyone still think online isn't a fit for political campaigns?

by Scope441 2006-09-22 10:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Latest Committee Moves

Great post, dude.  You have profound political insight and brought up things I hadn't considered.  That's what I love about this and other sites:  even when you think you know everything there is to know, someone comes along with another perspective.  

I especially like your take on DVR/Tivo eroding the effectiveness of TV ads and how when you are downloading something like a news snippet or a music video, you can be FORCED to sit and watch an online ad.  Those I imagine need to be utilized by our side, because you have that person's undivied, guaranteed attention for that 30 seconds.

by jgarcia 2006-09-23 08:45PM | 0 recs
Sherrod Brown up by 10 among likely voters!!

Sherrod Brown ahead, 52-42, among likely voters

Asked of 490 Likely Voters
Margin of Sampling Error for this question = plus / minus 4.5%

2 If the election for United States Senator were today, and you were standing in the voting booth right now, who would you vote for? Republican Mike Dewine? Democrat Sherrod Brown? Or some other candidate?

42% DeWine (R)
52% Brown (D)
7% Undecided

Asked of 490 Likely Voters
Margin of Sampling Error for this question = plus / minus 4.5%

Filtering: 900 Ohio adults were surveyed 9/18/2006 - 9/20/2006. Of them, 788 were registered to vote. Of them, 490 were judged to be "likely" voters. Crosstabs reflect Likely Voters.

I'm a stickler on the whole 'statistically significant' business - I work for a govt statistical agency - but this one is significant.  Sherrod Brown is really, truly, actually ahead in this race.

So nice to be able to say that.

And Strickland's beating Ken Blackwell (Ohio's answer to Katherine Harris) by 56-35.  Sweet, baby.  Sweet.

by RT 2006-09-21 01:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Latest Committee Moves

Maybe the DCCC should have done a little more homework in money spent in New Mexico.  

During the ad that airs in New Mexico, there is a shot of a desert, and a handful of saguaro cacti.  One problem -- we don't have saguaro cacti in New Mexico.  That's Arizona.

You might not think this is a big problem, but New Mexicans will look at this and say, "Are you serious!?"  And the debate on the cactus will just draw attention away from the real point of the ad -- tying Heather "Rubberstamp" Wilson to George Bush.

While I'm sure their intentions are good, they need to make sure to use the money more effectively.

by fbihop 2006-09-21 02:18PM | 0 recs
Good idea Scoop441!

the smaller blogs could certainly use the $$$$,

Ones like BlueNC have about 1000 visitors a day (to my knowlege)....that's a lot of voters!

by momoaizo 2006-09-21 02:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Latest Committee Moves

by momoaizo 2006-09-21 02:37PM | 0 recs
DCCC F**kup in NM-01

Chris:

They spent $9K alone on producing the ad here. It better look good.

The Albuquerque Journal:

(The DCCC's) high-dollar ad in New Mexico's 1st Congressional District features dozens of saguaro cactuses, which don't grow in New Mexico and have long been a thorn in the side of New Mexico purists who know better.

Me:

Way to go DCCC.

by imaPROgressive 2006-09-21 03:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Latest Committee Moves

115K on AZ 08 but nothing in AZ 05 where Harry Mitchell is locked in a tight race with one of the worst, JD Hayworth?

They can Rahm it up their collective !@#$%^&*

by TimO 2006-09-21 08:01PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads