The Dems Go Into Survivial Mode; Triage Is Job One

[Torie]

The Democrats have gotten the memo, and are doing what they need to do, to try to survive. Politico has an interesting article that lays it all out. The plan is triage (cut loose the losers), poll across the fruited plain to see flush out any sleeper seats that are out there (I wonder if we can get Lunar to purloin those polls for us ), and go micro and abandon big picture issues (indeed in a a companion article, party leaders in cases where Dem candidates are trashing Obamacare (which is now a substantial negative in swing districts, although not as salient as the economy and a feeling that government is dysfunctional and broken), the response, is "you go girl" as it were). Meanwhile, go negative on your opponents, and do it hard (Skelton is running ads that his opponent is against the troops, so he must believe that internal poll showing him in trouble), and importune candidates in safer districts to move their money over to those more vulnerable.  The Dems remain concerned about a flood of independent expenditures, and take little comfort that some GOP opponents in seats in potential play don't have much money.

So the Dems get it. The macro environment is hostile and that won't change, so going micro, and working at  the margins using any deflective strategies that may be potentially mitigatory, is the only game left  in town.

[Sam Spade]

Read the article closely.  Nothing will happen until 2 weeks from now, at earliest.  Which fits my call here of about a week ago.

I've always thought that you can get a grip around where an election is headed sometime around Labor Day though the Washington insiders never will act on this until early October (maybe late September).

Basically, I am close to thinking 5 Senate seats and 25-30 House seats are pretty much gone right now.  Republicans are hyperenthused and Independents (in my best judgment) have turned away from Dems.  The latter I am sure of, the former, probably only about 90% sure, henceforth the caveat.  Dems are also non-enthused, which can be affected.

I came to the conclusion that Dems need to build the firewall one week ago.  It'll take them, at minimum, three weeks from that point.

[Torie]

Yes Sam, you stated the obvious before the press did. Congratulations!  

And I posted that the odds were that  the Dems would lose the House two or three weeks ago, and the press read my posts, and now it is all over the place. Fancy that.

[Vepres]

I actually think going hyper negative could hurt them in the end, because it reinforces the idea that they haven't done anything positive this congress to campaign on.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

Didn't you post an article about this last week?

Why don't the Democrats try to allocate more of their money towards the DGA and legislative races so that they can have an impact on redistricting, which actually has long term affects? It could be disastrous in the short term but in 2012 they would be reaping the benefits when it matters. The Firewall strategy + heavy investments in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois, Florida, Michigan, California and Texas (maybe)? Is that feasible?

[Capitan Zapp Brannigan]

I actually think going hyper negative could hurt them in the end, because it reinforces the idea that they haven't done anything positive this congress to campaign on.

Eh, I think it can really only help in most cases. Dem incumbents have to rush to define their opponents as quickly as possible as their best hope for survival. What else would they use their financial advantages for.

[Zarn]

I actually think going hyper negative could hurt them in the end, because it reinforces the idea that they haven't done anything positive this congress to campaign on.

Eh, I think it can really only help in most cases. Dem incumbents have to rush to define their opponents as quickly as possible as their best hope for survival. What else would they use their financial advantages for.

Show they have actual creditable ideas that the population can get behi... oh wait. They don't.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Didn't you post an article about this last week?

Why don't the Democrats try to allocate more of their money towards the DGA and legislative races so that they can have an impact on redistricting, which actually has long term affects? It could be disastrous in the short term but in 2012 they would be reaping the benefits when it matters. The Firewall strategy + heavy investments in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois, Florida, Michigan, California and Texas (maybe)? Is that feasible?

No amount of DGA cash will save Onorato and Bernero. And the coatails of Corbett and Snyder will likely bring in Republican legislatures. They will likely abandon them.

[Dan the Roman]

Didn't you post an article about this last week?

Why don't the Democrats try to allocate more of their money towards the DGA and legislative races so that they can have an impact on redistricting, which actually has long term affects? It could be disastrous in the short term but in 2012 they would be reaping the benefits when it matters. The Firewall strategy + heavy investments in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois, Florida, Michigan, California and Texas (maybe)? Is that feasible?

No amount of DGA cash will save Onorato and Bernero. And the coatails of Corbett and Snyder will likely bring in Republican legislatures. They will likely abandon them.

Agree in PA. The 1-2 house seats they might save will be casualties of redistricting. There is nothing to save there with a 7 seat margin in the House.

MI is a different matter. The Democrats have a 67-43 margin, and that might be possible to salvage, and even if its reduced to say 57-53, thats still probably worth 2 house seats in redistricting if not negotiating room to draw the state house map itself for the next decade. Granted, this would have gone much better with Dillon at the top of the ticket, since he would have been stronger in the places they needed to hold.

[Dan the Roman]

Read the article closely.  Nothing will happen until 2 weeks from now, at earliest.  Which fits my call here of about a week ago.

I've always thought that you can get a grip around where an election is headed sometime around Labor Day though the Washington insiders never will act on this until early October (maybe late September).

Basically, I am close to thinking 5 Senate seats and 25-30 House seats are pretty much gone right now.  Republicans are hyperenthused and Independents (in my best judgment) have turned away from Dems.  The latter I am sure of, the former, probably only about 90% sure, henceforth the caveat.  Dems are also non-enthused, which can be affected.

I came to the conclusion that Dems need to build the firewall one week ago.  It'll take them, at minimum, three weeks from that point.

Agree, except I would say its four senate seats. The gubernatorial implosion is likely to make a mess of the GOP coordinated campaign, and with Hickenlooper in a strong operation in Denver, and Buck having no experience with a statewide campaign, I think this is one place where the disparity in field is going to cost the GOP 2-3%. That won't matter if the race is a seven or eight point race in a major wave, but as Washington and California have deteriorated over the last two months, this ironically seems to have been quietly moving to Bennet. The RCP average, all pre-Maesplosion is Buck +2.5, and I think the DSCC, with a money advantage, would be stupid to pull out of here. Esp. with an extremely good shot at the trifecta for redistricting, and the legislative races and somewhere else that will be killed by the lack of coordinated campaign.

[Mr.Phips]

Didn't you post an article about this last week?

Why don't the Democrats try to allocate more of their money towards the DGA and legislative races so that they can have an impact on redistricting, which actually has long term affects? It could be disastrous in the short term but in 2012 they would be reaping the benefits when it matters. The Firewall strategy + heavy investments in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois, Florida, Michigan, California and Texas (maybe)? Is that feasible?

No amount of DGA cash will save Onorato and Bernero. And the coatails of Corbett and Snyder will likely bring in Republican legislatures. They will likely abandon them.

Democrats have a two to one edge in the Michigan state House.  That isnt going anywhere.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

They should have done this months ago. American parties always do this sort of thing too late; a failing of weak party structures, presumably.

[Torie]

They should have done this months ago. American parties always do this sort of thing too late; a failing of weak party structures, presumably.

Exactly. 

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Didn't you post an article about this last week?

Why don't the Democrats try to allocate more of their money towards the DGA and legislative races so that they can have an impact on redistricting, which actually has long term affects? It could be disastrous in the short term but in 2012 they would be reaping the benefits when it matters. The Firewall strategy + heavy investments in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois, Florida, Michigan, California and Texas (maybe)? Is that feasible?

No amount of DGA cash will save Onorato and Bernero. And the coatails of Corbett and Snyder will likely bring in Republican legislatures. They will likely abandon them.

Democrats have a two to one edge in the Michigan state House.  That isnt going anywhere.

Really? The Republicans had a majority prior to 2006. If Snyder is racking up a 15 to 18 point Victory, do you really want to bet your life on the survival of a Democratic Majority? Especially the way things are right now.

lol:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_House_of_Representatives

Since when is 60-40 Rounded up to 2:1. Its 3:2.

I seem to recall there being another body that is held be Dems by a 3:2 Margin on the national level. I think that Dems have a whole lot more going against them in MI then the nation at-large as well. The members are elected to two year terms and 18 Democrats are term limited, to 11 Republicans are (MI has the three term limit on its legislature). What am I missing here?

1. Currently 3:2 margin of control or 66-43 (Was 58-42 after 2006)
2. Unpopular Dem Governor
3. Unpopular Dem President
4. Expectations of Solid Republican Victory in the Governors mansion
5. 18:11 margin of Term Limited Democrats to Republicans.
6. GOP controlled from 1994-2006.

Sure, bet your life on that.

[JohnnyLongtorso]

It looks like there are 19 Dems and 15 Reps term-limited.

I for one would put money on the Dems retaining control of the Michigan House. A 12-seat pickup is probably not going to happen; I just tried to find comparable levels of pickups in the past two cycles, and the only ones I could find were the Minnesota House (D+19, 134-seat House) and Maine House (D+15, 151-seat House) in 2006. New Hampshire's ridiculous 400-seat House doesn't count. Heck, back-to-back 14 and 16-point wins by the Dems only netted them 9 seats each time.

[Torie]

It looks like there are 19 Dems and 15 Reps term-limited.

I for one would put money on the Dems retaining control of the Michigan House. A 12-seat pickup is probably not going to happen; I just tried to find comparable levels of pickups in the past two cycles, and the only ones I could find were the Minnesota House (D+19, 134-seat House) and Maine House (D+15, 151-seat House) in 2006. New Hampshire's ridiculous 400-seat House doesn't count. Heck, back-to-back 14 and 16-point wins by the Dems only netted them 9 seats each time.

You need to look at the individual seats. This is a GOP gerrymander gone wrong, right?  If so, based on partisan breaks, a broad based swing should do the trick, no?  And from what I have read, in wave elections, legislative seats tend to be sucked in to the rip tide with great regularity. Most folks don't really know their state legislators in the first instance. Heck, I have to struggle to remember who my state senator is.

[Mr.Phips]

Didn't you post an article about this last week?

Why don't the Democrats try to allocate more of their money towards the DGA and legislative races so that they can have an impact on redistricting, which actually has long term affects? It could be disastrous in the short term but in 2012 they would be reaping the benefits when it matters. The Firewall strategy + heavy investments in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois, Florida, Michigan, California and Texas (maybe)? Is that feasible?

No amount of DGA cash will save Onorato and Bernero. And the coatails of Corbett and Snyder will likely bring in Republican legislatures. They will likely abandon them.

Democrats have a two to one edge in the Michigan state House.  That isnt going anywhere.

Really? The Republicans had a majority prior to 2006. If Snyder is racking up a 15 to 18 point Victory, do you really want to bet your life on the survival of a Democratic Majority? Especially the way things are right now.

lol:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_House_of_Representatives

Since when is 60-40 Rounded up to 2:1. Its 3:2.

I seem to recall there being another body that is held be Dems by a 3:2 Margin on the national level. I think that Dems have a whole lot more going against them in MI then the nation at-large as well. The members are elected to two year terms and 18 Democrats are term limited, to 11 Republicans are (MI has the three term limit on its legislature). What am I missing here?

1. Currently 3:2 margin of control or 66-43 (Was 58-42 after 2006)
2. Unpopular Dem Governor
3. Unpopular Dem President
4. Expectations of Solid Republican Victory in the Governors mansion
5. 18:11 margin of Term Limited Democrats to Republicans.
6. GOP controlled from 1994-2006.

Sure, bet your life on that.

A similar sized 14 point victory for Jennifer Granholm in 2006 only netted Democrats six state House seats.  I expect the GOP to gain a similar number this year in the state House.

[Torie]

But that was from a high base, where the Dems already had more than their "share" right?

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

The Democrats have a 2 to 1 cash advantage for the Michigan State House. That alone will make things really difficult for the MI GOP. I have no idea how realiable this guy's ratings are but he did an analysis of things and the situation looks decent for MI Democrats. http://swingstateproject.com/diary/7532/michigan-state-house-and-senate-september-2010

It isn't unheard of for a gubernatorial candidate to do really well while his party makes next to no gains in the legislature. Christie had a 5 point win over an unpopular Governor, and the NJ GOP only gained one seat in the New Jersey House. I know nothing about New Jersey state politics but it seems to me that this situation could happen in other states.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Much like how the GOP is almost guaranteed to gain seats in both houses of the Minnesota legislature even if Emmer is destroyed, but mostly just because the Democrats have basically maxed out with all winnable seats.

[Mr.Phips]

But that was from a high base, where the Dems already had more than their "share" right?

Not at all.  Republicans held a 58-52 majority in a blue leaning state.  By your logic, Republicans should have lost 12 or more seats. 

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

New Jersey is much more an exception than a rule. These are million dollar campaigns where Republicans were put spent by 2:1, 3:1, 5:1, and in many cases, better than 10:1.

Even Republican incumbents got outspent. Of course, now that Christie is governor, those numbers may very well flip on their heads. Ain't corrupt systems grand?

[Torie]

But that was from a high base, where the Dems already had more than their "share" right?

Not at all.  Republicans held a 58-52 majority in a blue leaning state.  By your logic, Republicans should have lost 12 or more seats. 

I guess the GOP lost a zillion seats then.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Katy bar the door!

[Mr.Phips]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

New Jersey is much more an exception than a rule. These are million dollar campaigns where Republicans were put spent by 2:1, 3:1, 5:1, and in many cases, better than 10:1.

Even Republican incumbents got outspent. Of course, now that Christie is governor, those numbers may very well flip on their heads. Ain't corrupt systems grand?

The flip side is that after 2010, Republicans wont be dealing with a political environment anywhere near as freindly as 2009.  I expect a big backlash against Christie and Republicans by 2011.