Pressing Our Senate Advantage: Spend Early

by: Chris Bowers

Tue May 27, 2008 at 15:35


My head has been spinning ever since I put together the latest Senate Forecast this morning. Looking only at Republican-held seats:

  1. Democrats currently lead by 18-24% in New Mexico Hampshire and Virginia;
  2. By 6-10% in Colorado and New Hampshire;
  3. By 2-4% in Alaska and Mississippi-B;
  4. Additionally, Democrats are within 3-5% in Kentucky, Minnesota, North Carolina, Oregon and Texas;
  5. Democrats are also within 10-15% in Idaho, Kansas, Maine, and Nebraska

By contrast, Republicans are within 20% in only two Democratic held seats, Louisiana (Dems +14%) and New Jersey (Dems +18%). To top it all off, the DSCC has a $20.5M cash advantage on the NRSC. With so many advantages, there is now a very real possibility that Democrats can reach 60 Senate seats in the next Congress, not even including Lieberman.

As incredible as it may seem, the huge number of Democratic advantages actually gives Democrats a big opportunity to improve the Senate picture further. We have so many advantages to spare, that we can invest some of them to build even more advantages. Specifically, the DSCC could use its enormous financial advantage to start running high saturation cable and Internet ads in thirteen of the fifteen Republican held states listed above (New Mexico and Virginia look fine on their own). The ads could run from mid-June (say, the week after the end of the Democratic primary on June 9th) through the start of the Olympics on August 8th.

Hitting paid media early should result in Democratic candidates taking the lead in all five of the states where they currently trail by 3-5%, build decent leads in the two states where we already have narrow leads, put both Colorado and New Hampshire well out of reach, and maybe even move a couple of the long shot seats in tier five inside the margin of error. In this way, the ads could pay for themselves, by presenting Republicans with way too many targets to defend, giving far more of our candidates credibility to free media and donors, and also by framing the message of the campaign before Republicans go on the air. From that point, if the DSCC can credibly and accurately argue that a 10-12 seat pickup is within reach, its own coffers should go through the roof.

So, as crazy as it may sound, spending $15M on paid media over the next two months now could not only pay for itself, but it could turn an already mouthwatering Senate picture into a truly historic rout by mid-August. We have so many advantages right now, I would love to see us press further. If we spend early and wide, we can potentially end Republicans as a functioning political party in the Senate for the next four years.  

Chris Bowers :: Pressing Our Senate Advantage: Spend Early

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
I don't see us getting there, but... (0.00 / 0)
... a fine goal nonetheless. To get to 60 without Lieberman we need 10 pickups. If all the chips fall the right way we'll pick up the first three of Chris' tiers, which means plus six seats for us. The biggest problem I see here is Mississippi. If we lose Mississippi, we need five pickups from the next two tiers. I see us as legitimately competitive in all of Tier 4 except for Kentucky.  Even though McConnell appears incredibly vulnerable, he couldn't have picked a more beatable opponent in Lunsford.  All the others appear legitimately competitive, however. Say we win 4 from Tier 4 (again, a stretch): We may need one Tier 5 race. Idaho? Nahh. Maine? Maybe. Nebraska's a stretch, even though Kleeb is great. I just can't see Kansas flipping, but who knows.
I'll say this: if Obama runs close in the Red Midwest (Kansas, Nebraska, and the Dakotas) - which I think is possible if he picks the right veep candidate - we could reach 60 in the Senate, because that would put the Nebraska and Kansas seats in realistic reach.

I think guarded optimism isn't a bad thing (0.00 / 0)
in 2006 at this time it was far from certain that we would win states like VA.

[ Parent ]
But It WAS Obvious We Should Try (4.00 / 1)
to me, at least.  And I don't think I needed my genius hat for that one.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
but for macaca ... (4.00 / 1)
.... Jim Webb doesn't win that race, George Allen then runs for President, and likely brings down Huckabee's numbers in Iowa enough that Mitt Romney wins IA, wins NH and is the GOP nominee.

[ Parent ]
That is an interesting question .. (0.00 / 0)
would McCain have run if Allen had kept his Senate seat?  also .. you have to remember .. the TradMed was blowing smoke up McCain's ass the night of Iowa .. even as McCain was finishing 5th there .. In fact I remember Mike Allen(of The Politico fame) on TV calling McCain the comeback kid(Yes, for finishing 5th!!)

[ Parent ]
McCain would still have run ... (0.00 / 0)
... but if Romney had swept IA and NH, McCain would not be the nominee.  In fact, under that scenario, Giuliani's wait-til-Florida scheme might have even worked.

[ Parent ]
I am not sure if that's true (0.00 / 0)
At least according to Kos those numbers were already turning around before Macaca. ALthough from living in the state and being familar with the politics and Allen's popularity, my feeling is that you are right.

[ Parent ]
Another Argument For Edwards As VP, Methinks (4.00 / 1)
The newest SUSA VP poll is out. It's IOWA, not Nebraska or Kansas. But getting close.  And Edwards is still the only one who helps Obama, from +9 straight up to +12 vs. Huckabee, +15 vs. Romney, +21 vs. Lieberman, and +26 vs. Pawlenty.

Plus Twenty-Six!

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
Sebelius (4.00 / 2)
I think Sebelius is a better fit for that region and her campaigning there as Obama's running mate could really help in places you pointed to (KS, NE, IA) but also in places like Oklahoma, Indiana, the Dakotas etc. And even if Obama doesn't carry these states in the end, a VP from this region campaigning a lot out there could help some congressional, local and gub candidates. As for the Edwards numbers, that seems to be at least partly name recognition and I didn't see his coattails in 04.

My Silver State - Nevada's Progressive Community Blog

[ Parent ]
Part of that blame goes to Kerry .. (4.00 / 1)
obviously Obama has a lot different game plan .. so I imagine Edwards would be used differently this time .. if he were the VP nominee

[ Parent ]
coattails aren't a miracle grow (0.00 / 0)
in which you only have to add a name and thats it. vp's are judged by their running mates, not by their name alone. In other words, Edwards was limited by kerry.

[ Parent ]
Survey Says... Not So Much (4.00 / 2)
If you check my previous diary, Sebelius doesn't even do much among white women.  She is an extremely weak candidate.  McCain/Huckabee wallops Obama/Sebelius 44-38 in Iowa, while Obama/Edwards ulta-wallips McCain/Huckabee 50/38.

Realiy-based community, remember?

Not image. Reality.

The comparison to 2004 is entirely irrelevant, for any number of reason, as has been pointed out repeatedly in diary comments over the last weekend.  It was not Edwards call, and it was not done to his liking.

The only way Obama gets him on the ticket this time is if he makes Edwards an offer he can't refuse--and that has to include letting Edwards be Edwards.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
name recognition (4.00 / 2)
leads in early polls on anything are mostly based on name recognition. I know you like Edwards for VP and I respect that. But Sebelius simply doesn't have his name recognition at this point. Edwards is the Democrat in these VP polls with the most name recognition. He also was a recent candidate for president, if I remember correctly. Basically, if we went by early polls in the presidential race, we would have had a nominee Lieberman in 2004 and a Clinton-Giuliani race right now.

My Silver State - Nevada's Progressive Community Blog

[ Parent ]
Like I ALREADY Said... (4.00 / 5)

Counter-argument 1: Name recognition surely plays a role, but is hardly determinative. Edwards outperforms Pennsylvania governor Ed Rendell in his home state, and Rendell has virtually no noticeable advantage in next-door Ohio.

Counter-argument 2: Name recognition comes along with favorable and unfavorable impressions and is something that politicians work hard to earn. The fact that Edwards has higher name recognition and is a more formidable candidate is not something that we can simply assume a less-well-known candidate could make up for-particularly if they do not fit into the analysis summarized above.

Counter-argument 3: Name recognition at the end of the process is irrelevant.  What matters is what the candidate brings to the ticket, and name recognition plus strong polling as a VP is certainly a definite advantage.  Someone without that advantage should have compelling arguments to make as to why they would be better in the long run-and the fact that they will eventually have higher name recognition is not such an argument.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
Agreed (4.00 / 4)
I hate it when people use low name rec as an excuse for performance.  Name recognition is part of what makes Edwards attractive.

Additionally, I think it would be a mistake for Obama to pick a VP with low name rec.  I don't want to see us spending money defending Republican attacks aimed at defining our VP's image.    This is one of Edwards' greatest strengths: the Republicans don't have a very large opening to define him, if they can at all in any meaningful way.  To my mind, this means picking Edwards is not just a good idea, but essential.  


[ Parent ]
Exactly right- it's a strange way to argue (4.00 / 4)
"We have the advantage of people knowing our candidate on this issue for VP, and they still favor him" but you know what, "let's go with an unknown quantity in which we will have to introduce the VP nominee because that quantity will give us an advantage although I am not certain." That's the rebuttal in a nutshell. I don't get why anyone thinks that argument makes sense. The value of a known quantity is that people know the quantity warts and all, and that means less ammunition that the GOP can effectively use. What are they going to say about Edwards that hasn't already been vetted? With a new guy or woman, there's vetting.

[ Parent ]
I Think It's Political PTSD (4.00 / 1)
Folks are still shell-shocked from 6 years of the GOP Congress going after Clinton, followed by 6 years of Bush blindly supported by the GOP Congress, and all that time with the M$M singing backup.

They just don't think straight any more than a soldier who keeps jumping every time he hears something at least as loud as a twig snap.

So, yes, when I'm aruging with them, I get very frustrated.  But when I take a couple of hours off and have to do other stuff, I can come back and look at it more dispassionately, and feel some compassion for them.  They've simply too beleagured by ghosts to be able to think straight and focus.  And it's not really their fault, and really should be a lot more patient with them.

But, then, I've had to put up with that same shit a lot longer than most around here, too.  

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
Only part of the equation (4.00 / 1)
The other half comes from armchair quarterbacking.

We all have our pet theories as to how to get the maximum numbers of electoral votes, and there are very rarely numbers to back up these theories. So VP candidates are chosen because to the poster they represent an idea of what the Democratic Party should be and because they appeal to constituencies that the poster wants to build a coalition around.

The problem is that these tend to be houses built on sand. Sure, it'd be nice if we could win Wyoming regularly, but the brutal truth is that the likely course of the next two decades makes that unlikely, and we don't need it.

To get realignment we need to win such that it can be said that we are in charge and we need to produce positive change. Big wins don't matter - Reagan won 49 states but because he had no real ideas it didn't cause realignment. Small wins don't prevent realignment - 1968 was very close, but the Southern strategy still changed US politics in a big way. And Edwards helps us to win (and is to boot not a bad future leader to have).

But that's messy, it's not the great imaginary solution where suddenly the Plains States, for example, decide that they'll suddenly shift Democratic as a block and thus it has less attraction.

So it's not just defensive considerations that make people reject this ideas, it's overly idealised offensive considerations.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog


[ Parent ]
You Mean We WON'T Win 56 States? (0.00 / 0)
You make a very good point about where this comes from for many.

At one level this is immediately quite convincing.  But I have a feeling there's more here to chew on.  Don't be surprised if it returns as a diary sooner or later.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
I think that's basically right (0.00 / 0)
The overestimation of what any one given move can do to shift the landscape. Edwards alone, and no VP nominee along can change thing, but in a series of moves Edwards maybe a piece that helps.

[ Parent ]
You know what else is good about Edwards .. (0.00 / 0)
is that a lot of people think he is a conservative Dem(because of the state he represented) ... he was actually polling fairly well in Oklahoma before he dropped out .. so sometimes you blur the lines a little .. if it helps you

[ Parent ]
wow, thanks (0.00 / 0)
so, you make your argument, I make a counter argument and so on. And then, unnecessarily you write this:

They just don't think straight any more than a soldier who keeps jumping every time he hears something at least as loud as a twig snap.

So, yes, when I'm aruging with them, I get very frustrated.  But when I take a couple of hours off and have to do other stuff, I can come back and look at it more dispassionately, and feel some compassion for them.  They've simply too beleagured by ghosts to be able to think straight and focus.  And it's not really their fault, and really should be a lot more patient with them.

But, then, I've had to put up with that same shit a lot longer than most around here, too.  

Wow, thanks, really. I've experienced a lot in the blogosphere in the past two years but never something arrogant like this from a frontpager of a prominent blog. I don't need your "compassion" and if you really feel that way I suggest you take down that link to my blog on your sidebar.

My Silver State - Nevada's Progressive Community Blog


[ Parent ]
VP choices unknown (4.00 / 4)
Paul,

The problem with the SurveyUSA VP polls is that (on the Dem side) 3 of the 4 choices are essentially unknown.  In polls on favorablility, the combined response of unknown/no opinion for Edwards is 14 percent, but a whopping 68 percent for Hagel.  And I can't even find a national poll for Sebelius or Rendell.  (pollingreport.com)

On the other hand, the unknown/no opinion for Huckabee, Romney, and Lieberman are 42, 20 and 28 percent.  No data for Pawlenty.  So if the polls were only registering name recognition, we would expect Pawlenty to be the worst for McCain, with all the others in a pack a substantial chunk ahead, and Edwards to be the best for Obama, with all the others in a pack a substantial chunk behind.  We would also expect Huckabee, Romney and Lieberman to do better than the no-VP matchup, except against Edwards.  

Now, here's the test: I haven't actually paid attention to the SUSA VP polls, although I obviously read your comment, so now I'm going to go look at the data and see if they match my predictions based on name recognition alone.

...........................

Wow, pretty much.  Iowa messes up things a bit by favoring Huckabee, who camped out there and won the caucus, but other than that, pretty close.   Hmm, Huckabee also gets some extra love in OH.  I think at this point we can conclude though that the VP polls are based almost entirely on name recognition alone.

The question is, does picking an unknown VP hurt a presidential candidate in the election?  Does picking a known VP give the presidential candidate a 'head start' so to speak?  Anyway, just sayin' we have to be careful how interpret these SUSA polls.  


[ Parent ]
I agree .. (0.00 / 0)
but it also says something when Edwards beats Rendell's numbers in PA

[ Parent ]
Indeed (0.00 / 0)
I messed up - didn't scroll all the way down to PA results!  :)

[ Parent ]
Rendell's numbers (0.00 / 0)
Rendell's currently been auctioning off the turnpike, which is highly unpopular with the citizenry.

[ Parent ]
Not So Much (4.00 / 2)
First off, correlation is not causation.  Sure, it's generally true that the greater the name-recognition, the stronger the candidate is in the VP slot.  It would be really shocking if this wasn't the case.

But that doesn't prove that name recognition is the cause of those differences.  More to the point, it doesn't prove that whichever candidate gets chosen will automatically get just as strong as Edwards already is.

Second, even if we could be sure that candidate X could become as strong as Edwards, why waste all the time that it takes to get their name recognition up that high?  It's wasting the advantage that Edwards already has, and the value it could have on the campaign trail right now.

Third, apparently you can't read polls all that well.

Huckabee does better than the other GOP VPs everywhere SUSA has looked so far, excet for Virgnia:

You'll also note that the second place GOP VP candidate slot splits between Romeny and Liberman.

Thus, Huckabee is a very clear indicator that you don't need universal name recognition to be your party's strongest VP pick.  He's not the best-known, but he is their strongest candidate.

Now, none of the above would really matter if Edwards were a weak candidate.  If our strongest known candidate can't get the job done, then we've got every reason in the world to go looking elsewhere.  But if our strongest candidate cleans the floor with the best they've got, then the old adage applies: if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

And that's the situation with Edwards and the VP slot with Obama.  It ain't broke.  It doesn't need fixing--especially with an unknown quantity.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
Ha! (0.00 / 0)
I blew it - I didn't scroll down to PA, so my bad.

So first, yes, Huckabee does better than the other R VPs, yes.

Second, the PA data tells that Edwards is definitely better than Rendell.  (No surprise.)

Third, the upcoming KS data will let us compare Edwards and Sebelius, although only if Edwards>Sebelius can we conclude anything, because if Sebelius>Edwards it could just be a homestate effect.

As to your second point, I think a 'new' unknown VP pick has the potential to get people excited all over again.  People like the next new thing.  That said, I'm certainly not arguing against Edwards here.


[ Parent ]
I'm Waiting For Kansas, Too (0.00 / 0)
I expect it will be generally similar to Pennsylvania, though Sebelius could well do better with some demographics.  And she might even outperform him overall, simply out of home-state pride, which tends to be considerable in a state like Kansas, which doesn't get that much national recognition.  

One thing is for certain--she's certainly a more respected figure in her state than Rendell is in Pennsylvania.  So I would seriously doubt she would do worse than he did in PA.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
Don't undersell Edwards in PA (0.00 / 0)
That was a VERY significant result. Rendell actually IS very respected in PA. He won in a landslide in 2006 (even more than Casey).

I suppose there could be a little diminished effect of Rendell because of his vocal support of Hillary (pissing off Obama supporters in the state).

But overall I think it was pretty amazing that Edwards beat him out in his own state.  


[ Parent ]
Speaking of .. (0.00 / 0)
The only way Obama gets him on the ticket this time is if he makes Edwards an offer he can't refuse--and that has to include letting Edwards be Edwards.

It that came to pass .. would that include letting Elizabeth be Elizabeth?  She isn't known for holding her tongue(and IIRC she has had some pretty choice words for John McBush) ... because as much as some of us like John .. I think there are a number of us that like Elizabeth even better


[ Parent ]
I don't think anyone "controls" Elizabeth Edwards (0.00 / 0)


[ Parent ]
I know that .. (0.00 / 0)
but you know what I mean .. mind you .. I love when she goes off on McBush .. but in politics .. speaking your mind can get you in trouble sometime .. even if you are telling the truth(or saying what needs to be said)

[ Parent ]
typo on point #1 (4.00 / 1)
You mean New Mexico, right?

New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

Warner apparently on VP shortlist... (0.00 / 0)
If he gets picked by Obama, expect VA to be a much more difficult pickup than is currently projected...

Not to get your hopes down. =)


I'm not so sure (0.00 / 0)
Gilmore is the likely Republican nominee and he will be VERY easy to beat. Depends on who our replacement is but I think it would still be very winnable. Maybe down to the same tier as Colorado and New Hampshire. But still a top pickup. Really depends on who is the replacement.

Also Warner would make Virgina almost a lock for Obama which would help whoever the Senate nominee was.  

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power


[ Parent ]
Creigh Deeds? (0.00 / 0)
Creigh Deeds only lost the election for AG in 2005 by a shade over 300 votes. He's already announced for the governor's race in 2009, but maybe Warner could pursuade him to take a crack at Gilmore?


[ Parent ]
He's pretty conservative (0.00 / 0)
but that would work.

Brian Moran might want to join his brother in DC and also first ran for office at the urging of Mark Warner. Then the Governors field clears for Deeds.  

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power


[ Parent ]
Blue Majority (4.00 / 2)
I think it's a great idea.

What I've been wondering though, is when another Senate candidate will be added to Blue Majority. I know you guys put Franken (MN) and Noriega (TX) on there. Both are now competitive races.

With some races (NM, OR, VA, CO, NH, NC, MN, ME) probably receiving quite a bit of help from the beltway and elsewhere (just basing this on my gut feeling, not data), how about getting involved and endorsing in one or two of the lower tier races like Idaho (Larry LaRocco), Nebraska (Scott Kleeb), Kansas (Jim Slattery). Maybe someone in a small state where we could have a huge impact like Alaska (Mark Begich). Or even try our hands at one that seems not competitive right now like Oklahoma (Andrew Rice).

So I nominate all these guys for the Blue Majority page (btw, I wish we had more women running for Senate this year).

My Silver State - Nevada's Progressive Community Blog


Definitely Oklahoma (4.00 / 3)
It's Oklahoma. It isn't going to be on the board very often and even when it is our candidates will be shitstains like Dan Boren. Trying to compete with an actual progressive there and spread good impressions of the Democratic Party is a task that could have big long-term benefits. And it's a cheap state.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

[ Parent ]
Short, Smart Ads (4.00 / 6)
I've been giving this some thought, and it occurs to me that the best way to go might well be with very short, simple ads.  Such as:

Price of gas, January 2001: $1.60 / Gallon
Price of gas, Today: $4.00 / Gallon
Mitch McConnel is Bush's right-hand man.
Had Enough?

Just do dozens and dozens of them with different little factoids slotted into the first two places--about the mistreatment of veterans, the lopsiddedness of Bush's tax cuts, the failure to protect New Orleans...  Make it so that people don't know what they'll learn about next.  But nice and short.  Ten seconds. Fifteen max.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


nice (0.00 / 0)


We won the Battle. Now the Real Fight for Change Begins. Join MoveOn.org and fight for progressive change.  

[ Parent ]
Hm (0.00 / 0)
I plan on spending the next two years crying bloody murder about any Democrat who fails to support a serious climate plan, which will inevitably include a price on carbon. I'd rather they not all get elected by campaigning for cheap gas.

So I mean, I agree with the principle, I just don't agree with the example.

Except, I'm not sure I do agree with the principle. I mean I do, but we need to keep on message, even in a year like this. I guess the two-pronged attack that worked so well in 06 was the war and corruption. Add the economy to that, and I think you may just have hit the bullseye. It would probably be easy to get together 20-30 blurbs on those topics. Or, really, who am I kidding? 2,000-3,000 blurbs on those topics.  I've always thought that:

For what we spend in just one week in Iraq, 800,000 children could get health insurance for an entire year.
is a pretty damn effective strategy.

I support John McCain because children are too healthy anyway.

[ Parent ]
At the risk of returning to the point (4.00 / 4)
I think the broader theme here is exceptionally important- specifically, setting the rules of engagement. An early saturation dictates the terms of every single one of these races in ways that build on and reinforce themes in the Presidential race and can work their way down to House and state races.

It's one of the most basic points of transforming political discourse and debate since I've been reading and writing online, and this is a straightforward way to fundamentally shift where the talking points come from in this country.

John McCain opposes the GI Bill.


Right (4.00 / 1)
I think the reason that the comments went kind of sideways is because Chris' idea is so good.  I mean, normally I at least have a thought or question but I just read this post and went, "uh, right, sounds good".  

The whole idea was already complete so I entertained myself with the shiny bauble of Edwards for VP.


[ Parent ]
Mostly, yeah (4.00 / 2)
And the comment subject was meant to be light-hearted as opposed to condescending.

My point was more that it's good to occasionally put these great ideas back into the broader context because I know a lot of people who don't pick up on the larger picture necessarily.

That, and I have nothing to add to the yay/nay Edwards discussion, so I thought I'd laud a good idea and start figuring out how to build on it. For me, that means at the local and state level cause that's where I'm focused, but yeah- refining themes as they move down the food chain needs a lot of work.

John McCain opposes the GI Bill.


[ Parent ]
state and local rules (4.00 / 2)
I'm glad to hear that someone else is focusing on state and local races.  I've been focusing my donations on state house and senate races, congressional candidates and the DCCC.  With all the energy being sucked up by the primary I thought it was the best place for me to be.  Glad I'm not alone.

[ Parent ]
Not alone (0.00 / 0)
The bench comes from the bottom.

John McCain opposes the GI Bill.

[ Parent ]
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox