Election Numbers
You know election season is upon us when a major national newspaper, in this case the Washington Post, has two articles on the over-all structure of campaigns. The first article examines the numbers crunching being done by both parties in trying to determine if and how the Democrats can re-take the House.
The wise people of Washington are knee-deep in numbers these days, trying to compute which candidates are vulnerable and which ones are lost causes, and where to devote precious money and resources. Oh, the joy and the horror of all those calculations, all those parsed polls and historical averages -- like fantasy baseball, only with the future of the country at stake.
This much we know: The Democrats need 15 more seats to take control of the House for the first time in 12 years. How the party can achieve that magic 15 (or not) depends on whom you talk to, and how they spin the special election that took place in California last week to replace ethically challenged and now-imprisoned Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R). They may invoke "drag," the Partisan Voting Index and something called "clump theory." They may bring up 1994 and they may bring up 1974. They may start talking about NASCAR and hurricanes.
The tone of the article is a bit snarky, but the subject just begs for that kind of treatment. The pols and the party officials are trying to figure out just which seats are safe and which are vulnerable, and they are using all sorts of complicated computations to determine that. The magic number, 15, can be reached in all sorts of ways. The Democrats are trying to figure out the best way to reach it, and the Republicans to thwart it. What each side decides will determine where the money will be sent, and that leads in nicely to the second article.
Democratic House and Senate candidates and their two major campaign committees are enjoying stronger grass-roots support than at any time since the GOP took over both chambers of Congress in the 1994 elections, according to strategists from both parties who have reviewed the most recent FEC data released this spring.
At the same time, Republican campaign committees are stumbling. The Republican National Committee is lagging behind its totals from two years ago, though it continues to have a financial lead over the Democratic National Committee. The National Republican Senatorial Committee, headed by Sen. Elizabeth Dole (N.C.), has raised more than $50 million this election cycle -- $6 million less than its Democratic counterpart.
On the House side, the National Republican Congressional Committee remains ahead of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. But the gap is smaller than in the past, and the trends are in the Democrats' favor. The DCCC had raised 45 percent more through the end of April than it had at the same point in 2004. The NRCC, meanwhile, saw a 13 percent drop over the same period.
The article points to the Democratic Party's successful use of the internet to raise funds, most of which are smaller in size, but the number of those contributions adds to the totals quite dramatically. Republicans have tended to go to the same well, those targeted donors who have shown their loyalty with their checkbooks in the past, only now some of those donors may have been tapped out.
Money is, of course, important in a campaign. It ensures television ads at the right moment and makes mailings more dramatic and esthetically pleasing. At the same time, however, I think both articles overlook the fact that money doesn't vote, people do. In the recent California Primary election, only about a quarter of the voters showed up. Whichever party gets their faithful off the couches and into the voting booths is going to control both houses of Congress.
If the Democrats want that to happen, there are a number of things they will have to do. They will have to start being visible in Congress right now. The time for rolling over because the other side has control is over. The Democrats might not win the House and Senate votes, but they will have a better record to take to their constituents.
Democratic candidates will also have to show up and do some old fashioned retail politics. They will have to meet, greet, and press the flesh at every mall, factory, and union hall in their districts, and they will have to prove to the voters that they have a plan to clean up the mess the GOP has given us.
Finally, the Democratic candidates will have to deliver a message to each and every voter in each and every precinct that each vote is important and will be counted. This time, they will have to mean it. One way to demonstrate that is to make sure their campaigns have adequate staff to walk the precinct and to hit the telephones to get out the vote.
That would be just for starters, but it would be a good beginning.
The wise people of Washington are knee-deep in numbers these days, trying to compute which candidates are vulnerable and which ones are lost causes, and where to devote precious money and resources. Oh, the joy and the horror of all those calculations, all those parsed polls and historical averages -- like fantasy baseball, only with the future of the country at stake.
This much we know: The Democrats need 15 more seats to take control of the House for the first time in 12 years. How the party can achieve that magic 15 (or not) depends on whom you talk to, and how they spin the special election that took place in California last week to replace ethically challenged and now-imprisoned Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R). They may invoke "drag," the Partisan Voting Index and something called "clump theory." They may bring up 1994 and they may bring up 1974. They may start talking about NASCAR and hurricanes.
The tone of the article is a bit snarky, but the subject just begs for that kind of treatment. The pols and the party officials are trying to figure out just which seats are safe and which are vulnerable, and they are using all sorts of complicated computations to determine that. The magic number, 15, can be reached in all sorts of ways. The Democrats are trying to figure out the best way to reach it, and the Republicans to thwart it. What each side decides will determine where the money will be sent, and that leads in nicely to the second article.
Democratic House and Senate candidates and their two major campaign committees are enjoying stronger grass-roots support than at any time since the GOP took over both chambers of Congress in the 1994 elections, according to strategists from both parties who have reviewed the most recent FEC data released this spring.
At the same time, Republican campaign committees are stumbling. The Republican National Committee is lagging behind its totals from two years ago, though it continues to have a financial lead over the Democratic National Committee. The National Republican Senatorial Committee, headed by Sen. Elizabeth Dole (N.C.), has raised more than $50 million this election cycle -- $6 million less than its Democratic counterpart.
On the House side, the National Republican Congressional Committee remains ahead of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. But the gap is smaller than in the past, and the trends are in the Democrats' favor. The DCCC had raised 45 percent more through the end of April than it had at the same point in 2004. The NRCC, meanwhile, saw a 13 percent drop over the same period.
The article points to the Democratic Party's successful use of the internet to raise funds, most of which are smaller in size, but the number of those contributions adds to the totals quite dramatically. Republicans have tended to go to the same well, those targeted donors who have shown their loyalty with their checkbooks in the past, only now some of those donors may have been tapped out.
Money is, of course, important in a campaign. It ensures television ads at the right moment and makes mailings more dramatic and esthetically pleasing. At the same time, however, I think both articles overlook the fact that money doesn't vote, people do. In the recent California Primary election, only about a quarter of the voters showed up. Whichever party gets their faithful off the couches and into the voting booths is going to control both houses of Congress.
If the Democrats want that to happen, there are a number of things they will have to do. They will have to start being visible in Congress right now. The time for rolling over because the other side has control is over. The Democrats might not win the House and Senate votes, but they will have a better record to take to their constituents.
Democratic candidates will also have to show up and do some old fashioned retail politics. They will have to meet, greet, and press the flesh at every mall, factory, and union hall in their districts, and they will have to prove to the voters that they have a plan to clean up the mess the GOP has given us.
Finally, the Democratic candidates will have to deliver a message to each and every voter in each and every precinct that each vote is important and will be counted. This time, they will have to mean it. One way to demonstrate that is to make sure their campaigns have adequate staff to walk the precinct and to hit the telephones to get out the vote.
That would be just for starters, but it would be a good beginning.
posted by Diane at 4:01 AM
2 Comments:
Great suggestions!
I would add that we have to find a way to neutralize the various vote shenanigans, from the undersupply of voting machines in high Dem districts to Diebold and other more direct vote fraud.
To start I'd suggest kidnapping the various Rethug secretaries of state from now till November, but my place is too small to hold them, and I'd go broker than I am trying to feed them.
Good suggestion, though, Sister.
How about we take seriously the recommendation that we start running Democratic heavy weights for the Secretary of State slot in each state?
Post a Comment
<< Home