Wednesday, August 16, 2006

GOP to Pour Money into Congressional Races

No big surprise here:
House Republicans have reserved more than $40 million worth of television advertising time for the fall, most of it aimed at holding seats they control, particularly in the Midwest and Northeast.

Republican incumbents in the Philadelphia area - Reps. Jim Gerlach, Curt Weldon and Mike Fitzpatrick - as well as Connecticut Reps. Rob Simmons and Nancy Johnson are slated to get roughly $10 million combined in party advertising. (AP)

Simmons and Johnson are facing very tough challengers this year in the form of Joe Courtney and Chris Murphy.

Interestingly, it seems like Chris Shays isn't among those receiving money.
Also, no advertising dollars are slated so far to help GOP Rep. Christopher Shays keep his Connecticut district even though Democrats have reserved $2 million to try to unseat him. His district in the southern part of the state watches television from the New York City media market that's among the most expensive in the country. (AP)

Both Simmons and Johnson are outraising their opponents by significant margins so far: only Shays is not. He has been outraised by Farrell in both of the last quarters, and she is neck-and-neck with him in cash on hand.

So either Shays is going to get some significant funds later on, the GOP is cutting him loose, or they don't believe Farrell is as big a threat as she's made out to be.

Source
"House GOP plans $40M ad push." Associated Press 16 August, 2006.

35 comments:

Weicker Liker said...

Shays told the NRCC to stay out of his race in 2004, so I assume he is taking the same stand this cycle.

Shays did host Majority Leader John Boehner for a fundraiser recently.

Weicker Liker said...

Shays told the NRCC to stay out of his race in 2004, so I assume he is taking the same stand this cycle.

Shays did host Majority Leader John Boehner for a fundraiser recently.

FatGuyinMiddleSeat said...

WL above is probably right. And the other 2 need the dough more.

Plus, I expect the drive-time radio and print to be the media of choice for both candidates. More affordable. Some TV maybe (cable buys) but not enough to be really expensive.

The leadership gives Shays a lot of room- they like holding that seat. If they thought dough could help Shays, it would be offered. They actively tolerate him going off the reservation because they know the district.

bluecoat said...

Shays: Time-frame for Iraq pullout near you haev to register at the Norwalk Hour but theb bootom line on Farrell is that as people get to know who and what she is, she loses by more and more each day with dumb comments like this one: "Tuesday's primary vote in Connecticut was a loud and powerful message that the voters of the state are unhappy with the Bush administration and its policies, especially its devastating and misguided policies in Iraq," she said without mentioning Lieberman, who like many other state Democrats, she had supported prior to the primary. from Dems Back Lamont, DeStefano By DON CASCIATO
of the Westport News.

FatGuyinMiddleSeat said...

What will the state of the Connecticut Democratic party be if:

1. An independent wins the Senate race
2. They fail to capture the governor's mansion
3. They only knock off 1 of 3 of the Republican seats in an unpopular Rep President's 6th year

By my count, that's where we are at this moment.

Answer: politely show the professional losers in the party the door. There's no, no, no, excuse for this, Dems.

GMR said...

With the Lamont Lieberman race being about the most watched in the country, it's going to be hard for these other races to get much media attention.

Elsewhere in the country, Santorum has pulled within 6% in PA; and the Republican candidate for Senate in Michigan is also polling better against Stabenow. Yet almost everyone is focused on Lieberman-Lamont.

Anonymous said...

What is interesting, if we are to trust what they say over on MyDD is that the GOP figure is somewhat modest when compared to the more than $50 million reserved by House Democrats this year (the first time in recent memory that the National Republican Congressional Committee will be outspent by its Democratic counterpart) and that the Republican action is almost wholly defensive and reactive

Anonymous said...

NRCC is shadowing the Dems. They bought time last week and did not committ to Farrell.

Plus the NYC TV market is roughly seven times the price of Hartford. The GOP may want to hold some cash to defend seats in cheaper TV markets (i.e. Scranton, Albany, Louisville etc).

Anonymous said...

"that the Republican action is almost wholly defensive and reactive"

When you hold the majority you don;t need to win more seats, just hold the ones you have.

Gerrymandering makes winning Dem seats in some states virtually impossible anyway. There are only 7 dem congressmen left in FL, because the R's left them alone to stock the other districts with R's.

Bobby McGee said...

It's a shame. Shays is definitely the best of those three. Johnson and Simmons are downright abominations.

disgruntled_republican said...

Bobby McGee-

Abominations? Are you kidding me?

Simmons is one of the best and most honest Congressmen in the nation much less CT. He busts his hump for his district and knows what his job is...and does it well.

I am so sick of the partisan BS from people like you...just because he is a Republican doesn't mean squat...luckily for us, the majority of the 2nd CD has agreed with me and not you....I suspect they will this time as well.

TrueBlueCT said...

FatGuy--
You are nuts if you think Joe will win in November.

From the last poll, even if you gave Lieberman all of Schlesinger's 6%, he would only be at 52%! That's pathetic for a politician of his stature, and no way will it hold.

Wait till people wake up to the fact that Lamont is more fiscally conservative than Joe, and not a raging liberal. Plus Lieberman keeps owning Iraq and insisting that he is right, and we are wrong. Throw in Bill Hillsman, and Ned will crush Joe amongst Independents.

Anonymous said...

Please explain how someone who wants government run universal health care is more fiscally conservative than Lieberman

You'll need Merlin to spin that one, not Bill Hillsman

as was said, Greenwich millionaires don;t wear white, I mean liberal, after Labor Day

TrueBlueCT said...

wOOt!

Jim Amann has got himself a brand new website. For some reason it doesn't mention his vote against civil unions.

Anonymous said...

Wait til people wake up and realize that Ned is a crazy liberal who's office will be populated by bierkenstocks and tie-dyed shirts. It'll be tough to keep constituents happy when they keep calling during the staffs bong breaks, munchie runs, or hemp-fests.

TrueBlueCT said...

hey, anonymice--

Someday soon you'll grow beyond your stereotypical thinking and come to embrace Ned. I know you will.

And for the record, Ned suggests that we are already paying for "universal health care", (someone picks up the tab for the un-insured). His plan is to first get everyone into the current system, via private insurers.

Anonymous said...

Bill Clinton's appearance in CT meant squat to the Lieberman race--- just as it meant squat when he visited Enfield to campaign with their Democrat Town Committee against Rob Simmons a few years ago.

Simmons has done right by District Two and the residents up and down the state realize it.

I see Mr. Courtney in the same light as Ned Lamont... Puppets for the neo-Libs in the beltway. ENOUGH ALREADY!

The True Gentleman said...

TrueBlue, I thought that Mr. Lamont's "private insurers" plan requires corporations (including small businesses) to pay for each employee's health insurance. Honest question, am I misinterpreting that? If so, please explain to me how it works.

The True Gentleman said...

And as a side note (but related b/c it is mentioned in the original post), my friend Rep. Curt Weldon (R-Penn.) is in the campaign of his political life. Rep. Weldon has admirably represented the suburbs of Philadelphia for approximately 20 years and, hopefully, we'll continue to do so...

GMR said...

For those who think Lamont will win the general, let me ask some questions.

1) What percentage of the people that backed Lieberman in the primary will ditch him for Lamont in the general election? I would imagine that there are some of these people, as they're the die-hard "yellow dog" Democrats.

2) Of the people that didn't vote in the primary, because they aren't registered Democrats, what portion of them do you think will vote for Lamont versus Lieberman and versus Schlesinger.

I would imagine that probably 10% of Lieberman's supporters in the primary will ditch him for Lamont. I think most of the hard-core Democrats would have already voted for Ned in the primary, although a few would have voted Lieberman. I think that many more of the Lieberman supporters like Lieberman for Lieberman and not for the (D) after his name.

As far as the people who didn't vote, they can be broken down into three separate categories: Republicans, Democrats and Unaffiliated/Other parties.

I don't know how many Democrats tht didn't make it to primary day will make it to the general, but some will. However, I doubt that this crowd would break more for Ned than the primary voters did. These are the people that are, for the most part, not that motivated. This was a hyped race.

As far as the Republicans, I would imagine that Ned gets less than 10%, despite his best efforts to say that he's a fiscal conservative. I would say that Schlesinger maybe can get 30% of the Republicans if he's really lucky, but I doubt that at the rate he's going, he can even get that.

Then there are the unaffiliated. How will they break for Ned? I just don't see Ned winning with this group, at least not by much.

TrueBlueCT said...

TG--
I believe Lamont's idea is for the government to subsidize small businesses in doing so.

And for the life of me, I can't understand why anyone would object to the government mandating universal health coverage in the same way it mandates auto insurance.

Anonymous said...

"subsidize small business". It's like "property tax reform", everyone pays more income tax in the vain hopes the government actually sends it to local schools.

yeah, right

The True Gentleman said...

TrueBlue, but does that mean that corporations (not small businesses) would be required to pay the entire health insurance of an employee? I would think that the result of such a policy would be a reduction in the workforce and/or an increase in the outsourcing of even more jobs overseas. Just some thoughts/concerns...

Chris MC said...

OK TB - now that is a truly interesting as well as provocative question.

Consider this as one short response:
If the model were literally that, then ever head of household would be required to provide health coverage for everybody they claim as a dependent, right?

Now, if I am going to hire somebody, and he has six kids and a wife with a history of health problems, the salary he is going to have to receive to be competitive with, say, a younger guy whose wife brings in a decent wage and both of whom are healthy is going to be much, much higher.

See where this leads? How do you propose to solve that problem? Mandates on businesses won't do it.

GMR said...

And for the life of me, I can't understand why anyone would object to the government mandating universal health coverage in the same way it mandates auto insurance.

I don't think anyone's employer pays for their automobile insurance.

How exactly does the plan in Massachusetts work?

bluecoat said...

GMR: the concept behind Romneycare is mandates on individuals - if your employer buys it for you that woul be just fine - unfortunatley the Democrats threw in a bugaboo over Romney's veto that taxedemployers who don't provide health insurance but all in all it is a pretty good move in the right direction.

Anonymous said...

chris mc - it's nice to see you back. your party is going too far to the left for you. i can feel it.

Anonymous said...

Ever wonder why Farrell has not announced any poll results? I know she has had a poll in the field and, typically, when a challenger has good poll numbers they run to the press. Yesterday she ran to the press to gloat that her race has been upgraded from "lean Republican" to "toss up" by the pundits, but still no release of poll results. Hmmmm. I say she doesn't want them made public because they show that Shays is stronger than everyone thinks.

Brassett said...

I, for one, continue to believe that Johnson's "Murphy as tax raiser" ads are straight out of the 1992 GOP handbook and not all that effective with today's electorate.

FatGuyinMiddleSeat said...

True Blue,

I may indeed be nuts, but like the guy in A Beautiful Mind, I can still do math.

Joe doesn't need 52% of the vote to win. He may not even need 46%, where he is now.

I'm tired of doing the algebra here for all of you emotional folks, but Joe is doing fine with indies and great with Republicans. He's still holding on to 2/3 of his primary support. Of the Dems who stayed home, many of them didn't feel the need to get out of their chairs to throw out an incumbent. If they vote, they'll break 60-40 Joe.

Of course, I'm only relying on the data we have. There will be x-factors.

If you think a Lieberman victory is crazy, you have blinders on. You must accept that is at least possible, if not probable.

Anonymous said...

Murphys' ads are like an infomercial for a Time/Life soft rock music collection. I'm waiting for David Cassidy or Rick Springfield to appear.

Gabe said...

GMR - To your first question, leaving aside for a second that there is no way to predict, 25% of Lieberman voters in the primary said that they would support Lamont if he won (CBS Exit Poll). FatGuy said above that Joe was losing about 33% of those voters. I think by election day we'll find him losing between 50-60% of those voters.

U, I, and Ds who didn't vote are an altogether different story that will be hard to predict (and I won't try). At this point, my gut says Lamont will win, but it would be foolhardy to assure a win by either of Lamont or Lieberman.

Of course, even odds that Lamont is the only one of the three candidates still in the race by November 1...

matt w said...

Nobody's going to get 46% - Lamont and Schlesinger start with 30% each, because those are the party line voters. Maybe Schlesinger gets 25% because of the doofus factor, but still.

That doesn't mean Lieberman can't make a strong case and win the seat back, but frankly, he still hasn't learned that the game he played against Weicker doesn't work anymore: in 2006, "more conservative than the Republicans" only works in the GOP primary.

Anonymous said...

matt w said: "Nobody's going to get 46% - Lamont and Schlesinger start with 30% each, because those are the party line voters. Maybe Schlesinger gets 25% because of the doofus factor, but still."

Read the latest Q poll. AS will not even approach 20%. In fact, the longer he stays in single digits, the more likely it is that he drops out.

Anonymous said...

Tell us something we didn't know about Congressional races! Don't we already know the GOP is planning to dump lots of money into CT? And of course incumbent House members are outraising opponents- they have access to huge amounts of PAC money and are xtemely willing to take it. Isn't that why their opponents pose a bigger threat this year?

For the past 6 years Congress has taken big PAC money and then invited those same organizations into the discussion of public policy. Well the public has finally figured it out.

When you look at money raised note amounts from PAC and out of state sources for incumbents. Their opponents are getting more individual contributions from
in-state. These are the people who want change, are excited about it and these are the folks who will vote for it. That is a very powerful fact. And yes, the CT senate race is feeding the energy of change machine.