Wednesday, September 8, 2010 1:00 PM

Josh Kraushaar: Against The Grain

When Money Doesn't Matter

One of the biggest crutches for House Democrats this election cycle is that, despite the brutal environment, Republicans have been staring at a significant financial disadvantage that would make it difficult for them to spend enough money in enough races to win the majority.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee already has reserved $49 million in advertising time, more than double the National Republican Congressional Committee's initial reservations, and it's held a significant cash-on-hand advantage throughout the cycle.

But the money picture is starting to look like less of an advantage for Democrats. The NRCC outraised its Democratic counterpart in each of the last four months, a sign that the Republican donor base is highly energized and that special interests have begun to hedge their bets on who will be controlling the House next year.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is now pressuring her well-off colleagues in safe districts to contribute, recognizing that even $49 million isn't enough to protect the dozens of vulnerable incumbents who all could use additional money against their opponents. House Republicans expect to have several more strong fundraising months before the election, and they plan to take out a loan that should give them about $7 million in additional funds, closing the money deficit. (Just yesterday, the NRCC expanded its initial advertising buy to include four more Democratic targets.)

Republicans' money gap would be more significant in a less volatile environment. But, because of several unique factors this cycle, GOP party strategists are more confident now about their financial standing than they have been at any point -- and here's why:

1. Democrats, not Republicans, face the toughest decisions in major markets. The conventional wisdom has suggested that Republicans, with their smaller bankroll, won't be able to spend big bucks in the major-market cities, protecting Democratic members near cities like Philadelphia, Columbus, and Denver. In reality, given the ever-widening field of targeted races, it's the Democrats who face more pressure in deciding whether to commit valuable resources to vulnerable incumbents in major-market districts or cut them loose and spend the money on some of the late-breaking firewall seats that could determine whether they hold the majority.

A New York Times story on Sunday highlighted the DCCC's plans to force some incumbents to fend for themselves -- reflecting the sobering reality that even $49 million isn't nearly enough to help every Democrat in a competitive race this fall, with around 80 Democratic-held seats potentially in play.

One of the most telling names on the "triage" list was Rep. Mary Jo Kilroy, a freshman Democrat who represents a Columbus district that President Obama carried with 54 percent of the vote. On paper, this should be a district that Democrats could save, with the DCCC's money and the Democratic National Committee's vaunted get-out-the-vote program, given the large number of Obama-friendly college students at Ohio State University and a white-collar electorate that voted heavily for Obama.

But if Kilroy is trailing Republican Steve Stivers badly enough, as several internal polls suggest, Democrats need to decide whether it's worth spending a million dollars in Columbus when other incumbents need the assistance.

Indeed, the DCCC has reserved advertising time in a number of expensive districts where members have been trailing in internal and public polling, including those held by Reps. Suzanne Kosmas (Orlando), Betsy Markey (Denver), Steve Driehaus (Cincinnati) and John Boccieri (Cleveland). There's no guarantee the money will still be there in October.

2. GOP Moneyball. Conversely, the playing field is so large this year that there are enough competitive races in small-market districts to give Republicans enough seats to win the majority without having to spend significantly in the major markets. The NRCC, with its initial $22 million budget for advertising, is prioritizing the races where the dollar goes a long way, in districts where it doesn't cost much money to get a message out. The vast majority of districts on the NRCC's planned ad buys lie in inexpensive media markets, as with its first ad, launched Labor Day weekend against Rep. Joe Donnelly, D-Ind.

So vulnerable Democrats with significant fundraising advantages against their Republican opponents, like Reps. Jim Marshall (Ga.), Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (S.D.), Allen Boyd (Fla.) and Ben Chandler (Ky.), will see their fundraising advantages quickly dissipate as the NRCC targets these inexpensive, rural seats with an early ad barrage. Many of these are conservative-minded districts that John McCain carried in 2008, where Republicans may hold a sizable edge on the generic ballot but Democratic members are still clinging to leads because they are much better known. Republicans believe that saturating these districts with ads connecting the incumbents to Pelosi and Obama could erase those advantages quickly.

3. Message overload. Democrats have been arguing they will be able to effectively use their financial advantage to discredit little-known Republican challengers with loads of opposition research on the airwaves. But in states with competitive gubernatorial and Senate races, voters will be so overloaded with advertising that they'll have trouble sorting through all the noise -- or, even worse for the Democrats, they may simply tune out all the negative messaging.

That will make it much tougher for House race advertising to have a significant impact in states like Ohio, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Nevada and Florida, just to name a few. If the attacks get lost in the clutter, the message will not be fully heard. The trajectory of the gubernatorial races in many of these states will play a significant role in whether House Democrats sink or swim, and needless to say, the upballot trajectory in most cases is not looking good for the majority party.

4. Stuck between a rock and a hard place. There are a handful of districts where the cost to advertise on television is so prohibitive that even well-funded members won't be able to utilize their fundraising advantages. Many of these districts are along the Northeast corridor -- in Connecticut, New York and New Jersey in the New York City media market. Several others are in California. In most years, these districts are built to protect incumbents, since the high cost of broadcast advertising often scares opponents from running.

These races are fought on cable television, radio and through direct mail -- much cheaper ways to get out a message, well within the limited means of challengers. Democratic incumbents like Jim Himes, Chris Murphy, John Adler, John Hall, Tim Bishop and Loretta Sanchez won't be able to massively outspend their opponents even though they have significantly more money.

"They're stuck on an island and won't be getting many reinforcements," lamented one Democratic strategist with clients in the New York City market. "It's up to them to fend for themselves."