House 2010: The Money Chase

Not sure how the Republicans are supposed to retake the House if the Democrats have more than five times more money in the bank than they do.

The DCCC, like its GOP counterpart, spent more than it took in during Oct., thanks to the expensive NY-23 special election. Still, it outraised the NRCC, as the Dem cmte took in $3.8M last month. It also outspent the NRCC, shelling out nearly $4M (about $1.1M of which aided now-Rep. Bill Owens' (D) winning campaign).

While the DCCC has more debt than the NRCC ($3.3M-$2M), it has a huge cash-on-hand edge. At the end of Oct., the DCCC had $14.5M in the bank, while the NRCC lagged with just $4.2M.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee had a net $12.2 million in the bank as of the end of October; the National Republican Congressional Committee had a net $2.2 million in the bank at the time. This means that, as of the latest reading, the DCCC had more than 5.5 times more money on hand than did the NRCC.

When the Democrats sought to retake the House in 2006, cash management played no small role in their success. Indeed, by the summer before election day, the DCCC managed to stockpile more cash in the bank than the NRCC, a nearly unprecedented achievement to that point.

The NRCC is doing better than it was doing at this point in the 2008 cycle, when the committee was still running a net deficit. Nevertheless, until the GOP is able to make up this major disadvantage on the House side, undoing the Democrats' more than 5.5-to-1 lead in campaign cash, it's not at all clear to me how they are supposed to mount the type of effort that could possibly retake the House in 2010 (even leaving aside generic ballot numbers that show them continuing to trail nationwide).

Tags: dccc, Fundraising, House 2010, NRCC (all tags)



Re: House 2010: The Money Chase
How can the GOP retake the House despite a $12.2 mil COH disadvantage?
I'm sure Upstate Kent has an idea.
by spirowasright 2009-11-20 12:17PM | 0 recs
For even more $, DCCC should be even more honest

People who contribute to committees like the DCCC value honesty in the way they are asked for more money.  

The truth of the matter for the House is that in 2006 we had to recruit conservative Democrats in many Red districts, especially in the South, in order to re-take the House.  In 2008, we likely again opted for "winning" candidates over progressive candidates in Red districts.  The problem for those Blue Dogs is that they have to fairly regularly vote conservatively to stay in office.  

So the truth regarding the passing of strong progressive legislation in the House is that Chamber control and a 50+ seat majority is still not enough to get much of what contributors care about done.  Those Blue Dogs could suddenly start voting with moderate and progressive Democrats, but they risk losing their seats to the extent they do, and a few elections cycles down the line we could be in a worse bind.

I hope the DCCC is totally honest about why we need more seats in the House, and that the DSCC also recognizes the value of explaining to contributors and to the general electorate exactly what is needed to get more done.

In fact, I hope Obama is smart and brave enough to make that observation and plea in his State of the Union address.  If we are to pass legislation that more strongly reflects the will of the American People, we will realistically need even more House and Senate seats.  We need to trust that contributors and voters will understand that political fact, and help us win those seats.

by Georgeo57 2009-11-20 01:08PM | 0 recs
Thebigger the tent...

...the bigger the drama.

You make the most important observation of the day, in that the democratic caucus is really made up of many people who are republicans from red districts.

Rahm Emanual, who is so often maligned by the far left, knows this, and knows his job is to get democrats elected.

The Republicans are playing the purity game to their detriment. We shouldn't do the same.

However, I also agree with Markos's boycott of the DCCC for the time being, in that democrats who oppose crucial legislation must feel the financial pinch.

by NoFortunateSon 2009-11-20 01:25PM | 0 recs
Re: For even more $, DCCC should

The democrats have always had defectors. During the entire Reagan admin several dems regularly voted with the GOP, in effect giving them a majority.

That hasn't changed. The Dems still have the same problem. The Republicans always had less of a problem, the defectors in their caucus were always a much smaller number, and in the 2000-2008 period they purged almost all of them out of the party.

by vecky 2009-11-20 07:39PM | 0 recs
Re: House 2010: The Money Chase

Money in the bank is not a big deal.

Afterall the Democrats gained seats in 2006 despite being outraised by the RNC. Dean was constantly criticized for spending too much and raising too little.

Let's hope the DNC doesn't fall into the same trap that the RNC did.

by vecky 2009-11-20 07:33PM | 0 recs
Re: House 2010: The Money Chase

If you notice the post, the DCCC had as much in the bank as the NRCC down the stretch in 2006.

by Jonathan Singer 2009-11-23 05:07PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads