We're 16 days out from election day and Democratic leaders and Democratic-aligned interests are still discussing the ultimate strategy for retaking the House.
There has been a lot of talk of expanding the field in the House, challenging races not previously viewed as competitive. The discussion has even reached the stage of how to find the money to invest in the second-, third- and fourth-tier races, with some advocating the DCCC take out a significant loan to cover new expenditures and others, led by Chris, calling on safe Democratic incumbents to pony up more dough.
Judging by recent expenditures by the DCCC, the committee is entering some previously overlooked contests like Nevada 2, Minnesota 1, and Washington 5. However, the vast majority of the committee's independent expenditures in the past week have gone to races in which hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not millions of dollars, have already been allocated. With party allies lobbying for a more limited field of races, as Adam Nagourney and Robin Toner report in The New York Times Sunday, perhaps these numbers shouldn't be surprising.
Democratic candidates in districts that had been considered long shots are now pleading with Mr. Emanuel's committee to send money their way. And some leading Democrats, among them Mr. Greenberg, are urging Mr. Emanuel to seize the moment by expanding the field in which Democrats are competing, saying the party has a chance to cement a big lead in the House in November.This argument has worried some Democratic strategists, who warn that overconfidence could press party leaders into making decisions that may siphon resources from closely fought races and risk the Democrats' advantage. "On the House side, it makes sense to be focusing on 25 seats to win 14, not 50," said Steve Rosenthal, a political and labor consultant with close ties to the party, who described many Democrats as "overenthused."
"If we had unlimited resources it would be different," Mr. Rosenthal said. "But we have to be careful."
There is little question in my mind that the Democrats should stay on the air in the top-tier House races around the country, spending as much as necessary to ensure that the most clearly endangered Republican incumbents and the most easily won Republican open seats are in play for the Democratic nominee in each district. I know this will cost a lot of money and that the party, its committees and its candidates have limited resources. And yet...
The law of diminishing returns applies to politics, just as it does to economics. The next $50,000 or even $500,000 in a campaign that has already seen several million dollars in expenditures by both sides cannot possibly go as far as $50,000 or $500,000 going to a race that that is not, to this point, as engaged. A one hundred thousand dollar investment in a relatively cheap district like Wyoming at-large or Kansas 2 would almost undoubtedly play a larger role in helping the Democratic nominee in the district win than if that same amount of funds went towards saturating a district slightly more with broadcast ad buys.
In short, the common wisdom of Democratic leaders and party allies might argue for a continuation of of the strategies of the last decade. The Democrats could challenge "25 seats to win 14, not 50" (leaving aside, of course, that the Democrats need 15 seats to gain control of the House, not 14). But by limiting the number of seats being targeted and dumping every cent into the most obvious contests instead of appropriating funds for races in which they might be able to catch a Republican incumbent wholly unprepared for a real challenge the Democrats would actually be limiting their ability to retake the House. It's that simple.
|
|
|
Permalink :: 36 Comments :: Post a Comment
|
In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.
If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.
