Last week on the PBS NewsHour, Judy Woodruff asked Nancy Pelosi if the GOP would take back the house. Pelosi replied “We take it one district at a time.”
“Will the Republicans take back the House?” is perhaps the most frequently asked question in Washington, and is usually followed up with “By how much?” Regardless of what you think about Speaker Pelosi, the lady didn’t get to be Speaker of the House by not being able to count votes. So lets have a look “…one district at a time.”
Republican challengers and open seat candidates lead in at least 51 House districts currently held by Democrats, according to public polling.
Following Nancy’s methodology, if the election were held on October 9 instead of November 2, the GOP would gain back the majority with 230 seats, assuming all tied races and races where Dems cling to a narrow lead break against the Republicans. Note that 17 more seats are within the margin of error of a standard poll.
Thanks, Nancy, for the vote of confidence.
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) is similarly bullish on Republican prospects for the fall.
Rep. Charles Djou, elected in an upset special election in Hawaii’s First District in May of this year, is arguably the second most endangered Republican incumbent.
The DCCC references the Djou seat, in Obama’s birth state, as one of its best pick up opportunities. If this is true, then the DCCC is figuring to lose about 80 seats.
Here’s why:
In 80 races in Dem-held districts, the Democrat is polling below 50%.
This breaks down as follows:
** one race with the Dem polling in the twenties,
** thirty races with the Dem polling in the thirties, and
** forty-nine races with the Dem polling in the forties.
Contrast this with Rep. Charles Djou. In an August survey, Djou out-polled his Democratic opponent 50% – 42%.
One of the DCCC’s best pick up opportunities is polling better than about a third of the Democratic caucus.
Obama’s other home state, Illinois, is turning from blue to at least purple.
Rep. Peter Roskam (the man whose name is on the door of the office where I work, in interests of full disclosure) started out at the top of everyone’s target list in 2007 after a narrow win against a severely injured female Iraq war veteran in 2006.
This election year, it is Roskam painting the targets on the Democrats as the Illinois Congressional delegation looks to turn majority Republican this fall, and Republican Mark Kirk is leading the race to take Obama’s Senate seat… although word is the White House calls it “the Roland Burris seat” these days.
While at least 80 Democrat candidates are in trouble in the polls, the Democrats have a pretty huge money advantage. By some estimates as much as $45 million between individual campaign advantages and the amount by which the DCCC, fully utilizing the power of incumbency, has outraised the National Republican Congressional Committee. This works out to about $600,000 more per race, on average.
In part, this is because the PAC community in Washington DC is extending a lifeline to at least 29 Democratic incumbents whose districts have given up on them.
Once again, lets take Nancy’s advice and look through fundraising reports one district at a time. The Federal Election Commission shows 29 races where the Republican challenger has raised more money at home than the Democrat incumbent, according to second quarter FEC reports.
– In 11 of those races, the Republican challenger leads in individual dollars by more than $100,000.
– On average, in these 29 races, the Republican challenger raised $262,000 from individuals while the Dem incumbent raised $130,000.
Unfortunately, the PAC contributions for the Dem incumbents far exceed the PAC contributions for the challenger in the same 29 races – on average, by more than 3 to 1.
When the average American hears the word “PAC,” they tend to have an unfavorable opinion. It sounds like smoky back rooms and special favors and all that is wrong with Washington DC.
But PACs are just groups of people with similar interests – employees of a company, for instance – who contribute to a political committee in hopes that the committee will help protect their interests from a power hungry government.
After Cap & Trade, Financial Regulatory Reform, Obamacare, and the lingering threat of Card Check, the necessity for PACs should be obvious. But what would make the Washington DC PAC community continue to fund a Democratic majority that cannot even fund itself?
Think of it this way. Think back to college. All of us had a cool friend who dated the head-case, loser boyfriend. Nobody could figure out why she stayed with him. She would say things like “No really… he’s getting his act together… I know it will be different this time!” We all knew better. The loser never changed.
And the Dems aren’t even saying they are going to change! They are talking about ramming through more of their anti-growth agenda in November.
Business PACs are notoriously risk averse, and are particularly shell-shocked after two years of a very heavy handed Congress with its hand in their pocket both legislatively and in fundraising. Ask Eleanor Holmes Norton about best practices for using thinly veiled threats to raise money.
What the PAC community has not realized is that there is now more risk in supporting Democrats.
Unlike your friend in college, who tearfully went back and forth on whether to leave her head-case boyfriend, the business community need not rely on emotion to decide the fate of its relationship with the Dems. The business community has hard data, and it shows that now is the time for the DC PAC crowd to break it off with the 80 “bad boyfriends” in Congress.
Hey, don’t take my word for it… even Nancy Pelosi thinks so.
COMMENTS
Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.