It’s like sports betting, only the payout is our future.
|
Listen To This Story
 |
Early this month, The New York Times reported that the presidential campaign of Vice President Kamala Harris would be spreading the wealth by supporting the Democratic Party’s down-ballot candidates to the tune of $24.5 million.
That’s a lot of money, especially for a candidate locked into a race at the top of all the ballots that couldn’t be any closer or more existential.
In keeping with Harris’s move, I present here a follow-up to a column I wrote in March focused on how to achieve maximum impact with your own support in an election year in which waste may spell disaster. “Bang for Your Buck” warned about the brave but feckless “Don Quixotes” taking on especially odious and high-profile “dragons” like Reps. Jim Jordan (R-OH) or Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA).
These would-be dragon-slayers make compelling and often heart-tugging cases for why you should donate to their campaigns — the only problem being that they don’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of winning.
Their targeted opponents hold “safe” seats in gerrymandered House districts, or are running for Senate in ruby-red states.
So , in responding emotionally to their appeals, you would be literally taking money that could make the difference in key competitive races — and for our nation’s future — and throwing it away.
Writing in March, I had to keep it general and conceptual because relatively few candidates were chosen and contests set. Now the races are set and it is possible — and necessary — to identify the handful of matchups that will make all the difference in national direction come November, as well as the handful of dragon-slayer matches with high emotional appeal to steer clear of.
Handicapping the House
I could, at this point, drop in a series of spreadsheets showing the districts with the most competitive contests, where support is most needed. But this work has been done by others and it will be easy enough to, as they say, do your own research. Here are links to two reliable “rating” pages: the Cook Political Report and 270ToWin.
Each site identifies the congressional districts (CDs) it considers “toss-ups” (Cook puts 24 in that category, 270ToWin 21, illustrative of the minor variability among analysts, but there is general agreement on the vast majority of races), as well as the “lean,” “likely,” and “solid” categories.
While a quick view of either or both of these recommended sites will give you a pretty fair idea of where the action is and what races will decide the House majority, it is a lot of work to track the ups and downs of each race if you’re trying to fine-tune or micro-target your support.
The parties, of course — in the case of the House, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) and the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee (RCCC) — have the time and resources to respond to such vicissitudes and channel funding accordingly. So do nonprofits such as EMILYs List — though many of these are agenda-driven (promoting primarily, say, pro-choice or environment-prioritizing candidates), while the parties themselves are generally hell-bent on simply achieving a majority.
That is an especially important distinction this year. Because whatever “causes” are closest to your heart, the overriding goal, for both sides, is majority control come 2025. In fact, it would be fair to say that, to the parties, virtually nothing else matters — because there is so much at stake in this election in addition to the obvious legislative and policy implications.
In the case of the Senate, the majority will have the power to block both judicial and high-level executive appointments, as well as choose the vice president, in the event of a contingent election.
In the case of the House, the GOP has a lock on control of a slim majority of state delegations. This would portend a Trump victory, since, in a contingent election, each state has one vote in selecting one from the top three presidential vote-getters. Nonetheless, control of the overall House majority may well play a vital role in how a potential contingent election for the presidency is conducted, and so on its outcome. (Note that RFK Jr., in spite of suspending his campaign and endorsing Trump, continues to pursue his suit to get on the New York ballot, presumably to boost his effort to qualify as the third-place finisher and stamp his ticket into a potential contingent election).
It’s complicated, and there are both known and unknown unknowns lurking, but you can bet that the specter of Donald Trump looms over the planning and gaming now being conducted by both the DCCC and the RCCC.
So you can also bet that donations to either of these groups are likely to find their way to the campaigns of the most strategically important candidates — the ones where the parties believe they will get the most “bang for their buck,” with their eyes riveted on winning the 218 seats needed for a bare House majority.
This is not to say that the DCCC or RCCC will make all the right decisions — one side, after all, will lose. But it is to say that they will gather and act on better data than you or I can access and crunch. And that they are extremely unlikely to play favorites or wax sentimental. Not this year.
So, for example, as a progressive, you might have no use for right-leaning Democratic Reps. Jared Golden (ME-2) or Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (WA-3). You might think of them as Democrats In Name Only, DINOs, or worse. But, like it or not, in this America and in this election, that “D” — that they are Democrats — is all that matters.
They each represent swing districts — districts Trump won in 2020, and that Democrats cannot win again if they move an inch to the left. And they each represent one reliably Democratic vote — as reliable and as essential as AOC (D-NY) or Jamie Raskin (D-MD) — when it comes to control of the House and electing the speaker (and possibly the president).
They need support precisely because they are in swing districts and in the toughest election battles. The DCCC gets that and is a very good bet to act accordingly.
Assuming you have resolved to contribute in this election cycle, and recognize the importance of a House majority, you might decide to manifest your support in this way through the party. Or you might consult the sites I linked (or others) and do your own picking and choosing. You might even check out Elon Musk’s PAC and support the opponents of the 15 candidates on whom he is lavishing millions, secure in the knowledge that he has done his homework and is putting his bucks strategically in the service of electing a GOP House majority. All such approaches make sense.
There may occasionally have been a place for gauzy emotions in our politics, but there certainly is no room for it in 2024. This year calls on us all to be ruthlessly analytical — or analytically ruthless, if you’d rather.
What you want to avoid at all costs is being moved to contribute by an ad or an email with a lede like:
Had enough? We’re building up our grassroots network for November and beyond, and if we’re serious about defeating Lauren Boebert, then we have to get serious about this end-of-quarter deadline coming up in under a week. (emphasis in original)
Yes, Lauren Boebert is despicable, a distillation of everything that’s gone wrong since Trump came down the escalator. She is a dragon, and a dragon-slayer is asking for your help. And remember, Boebert came within a few hundred votes of going down in 2022 to Democrat Adam Frisch. So why not?
Well, because Boebert had the good sense to move her lemonade stand from CO-3, and a rematch with Frisch, over to the much redder CO-4, rated “likely Republican” by Cook and “safe Republican” by 270ToWin. Could lightning strike twice? Could CO-4 Democratic candidate Trisha Calvarese pull an Adam Frisch and actually give Boebert a run for her money? Sure.
But the House majority is not going to be won betting on such three-legged longshots. All the money in the world is extremely unlikely to net the Democrats the CO-4 seat. And it is easy enough to find the candidates that really, really could use that money.
There may occasionally have been a place for gauzy emotions in our politics, but there certainly is no room for it in 2024.
This year calls on us all to be ruthlessly analytical — or analytically ruthless, if you’d rather.
So it behooves us to weigh each and every appeal for support against the prospects for success. Toss-up races of course, perhaps a few “lean” races — and that’s it. In the House, nothing “likely”; nothing “solid” or “safe,” whether blue or red. In 2020, not a single House contest out of 361 rated likely or solid/safe resulted in an upset. The gerrymanderers have done their job too well for such miracles to happen.
If you’re fine-tuning, it might be worth bearing in mind that, in 2020, all 27 House contests rated toss-up by Cook were won by Republicans. Yes, you read that right. The GOP went 27 for 27 on toss-ups (how is a question that may never be answered, but I looked into it here), and also picked off seven “lean Democrat” seats, while losing none of their own GOP leaners.
Whatever that highly improbable pattern might say about the integrity of our elections, it may serve as a guide if 2024 does not depart too far from that pattern, suggesting lean Republican contests may be less “in play” than lean Democrat contests.
But the key point is that if you are solicited — no matter how heart-tuggingly — by the Democratic opponent of a dragon such as Boebert, Greene (GA-14), Jordan (OH-4), Matt Gaetz (FL-1), Clay Higgins (LA-3), or any of the other relatively high-profile Republican representatives you love to hate and wish devoutly to send packing, before you send a dime to that Democratic opponent or to any PAC or outside group dedicated to making your wish come true, check the status of the race.
In all likelihood it will be safe/solid, or at least likely — such extremist dragons rarely if ever represent swing districts — and your money will be wasted. Worse, assuming you have some kind of political support budget, it will be siphoned away from where it is desperately needed.
One additional point that needs making: Candidates, even many who are comfortably ahead, never tire of claiming that they are falling behind or in danger of falling behind, and they will often cite some outlier poll to that effect. This is, of course, to motivate you to save their bacon (and democracy). Be wary; do a little research; consult some additional polls or polling aggregates before saving any bacon that may not need saving.
Sorting Out the Senate
The Senate offers fewer choices but they are in many ways more difficult ones. It’s common knowledge that the Democrats are facing an uphill battle to preserve their ultra-slim Senate majority (which currently includes three independent senators who caucus with their party). For starters, they are defending 23 seats to the GOP’s 11. And, while at least nine of those GOP seats are stone-cold safe, the Democrats have a handful of competitive seats to defend. And they’ve already lost one with the retirement of Joe Manchin (I-WV), flipping West Virginia to a safe GOP pickup.
The good news for Democrats in 2024 is that they have good chances in nearly all of the competitive contests for Senate seats they currently hold. The bad news is that “nearly all” won’t be good enough to keep their majority, unless they can expand their map and pick off one or two GOP-held seats.
This unenviable position is due in large part to the Founding Fathers’ anti-democratic conception of a Senate as representing states rather than populace, such that Wyoming enjoys something on the order of 60 times the per capita Senate representation of California. Indeed, half the nation’s population is represented by 83 senators, the other half by 17, and there is a pronounced tilt toward smaller, redder states. With the party’s loss of the solid Dixiecrat South in the wake of the civil rights movement, this has become something of a chronic ailment for Democrats, who find it difficult to eke out a bare Senate majority even with political wind at their back.
The good news for Democrats in 2024 is that they have good chances in nearly all of the competitive contests for Senate seats they currently hold. The bad news is that “nearly all” won’t be good enough to keep their majority, unless they can expand their map and pick off one or two GOP-held seats.
Which brings us to the races themselves. In this case, I will present them for review, though they can also be researched at the links provided above for the House. The key Senate battlegrounds, per Cook, are:
Michigan Slotkin (D) vs. Rogers (R) Toss-up
Ohio Brown (D*) vs. Moreno (R) Toss-up
Arizona Gallego (D) vs. Kelly (R) Lean D
Nevada Rosen (D*) vs. Brown (R) Lean D
Pennsylvania Casey (D*) vs. McCormick (R) Lean D
Wisconsin Baldwin (D*) vs. Hovde (R) Lean D
Montana Tester (D*) vs. Sheehy (R) Lean R
To this core group we can add four in the penumbra:
Maryland Alsobrooks (D) vs. Hogan (R) Likely D
Florida Mucarsel-Powell (D) vs. Scott (R*) Likely R
Texas Allred (D) vs. Cruz (R*) Likely R
Nebraska Osborn (I) vs. Fischer (R*) Likely R
* Indicates incumbent
Although these ratings derive from Cook, they are fairly representative of near-consensus analysis in most cases. Should you wish to gaze into the various other crystal balls, you can find some here. The general view at this point is that Jon Tester is in deep trouble in Montana, Angela Alsobrooks comfortably ahead in Maryland, while incumbent Republicans Rick Scott, Ted Cruz, and Deb Fischer are facing somewhat more serious challenges than expected.
With the current Senate balance at a precarious 51 to 49 in favor of the Democrats (including the three independents who caucus with them, but not including the certain-to-be-lost West Virginia seat, which will make it 50-50), the Republicans are favored to regain control in November, with a likely minimum 51 seats.
To avert this loss, the Democrats will have to win the two toss-ups (Michigan and Ohio), hold serve on their one likely (Maryland) and four leaners (Arizona, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin), and win against the odds in at least one of Montana, Florida, Texas, and Nebraska. (Nebraska comes with an asterisk, as independent candidate Dan Osborn has not committed to caucusing with the Democrats if elected.)
Enormous Stakes, Little or No Certainty
If that all leaves you scratching your head about how to divvy up a hypothetical contribution of $X, you’re in good company. There has been heated internal debate within the Democratic Party whether it makes more sense to prop up Tester or “expand the map” and go after Scott (+3 in recent polling), Cruz (+3.6), and/or Fischer (+1), with the party only recently deciding to take the plunge for expansion.
Their likely best bet among those three is Florida, where Democrat Debbie Mucarsel-Powell is running a strong campaign, a reproductive rights amendment is on the ballot, and Gov. Ron DeSantis’s (R) anti-woke jihad, fully backed by Scott, may have pushed too far in what may turn out to be the year of the woman. But these contests are all fluid, and Democrats have had little electoral success of late in any of these states.
While all 11 of these contests should be considered “in play,” it makes sense for the smart (and limited) money to prioritize the toss-ups and any leaners that tighten over the coming weeks. You can follow the polls for those states here. Or here. Or, as with the House, put your trust in a distributor like the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) to make the best decisions based on available knowledge.
But, as with the House, as of now it makes zero sense to contribute to candidates, PACs, or other outfits trying to take down the likes of Josh Hawley (R-MO) or some other senatorial dragon you revile.
In the spirit of ruthless analysis, one might also ask whether, given the odds, it would make sense to write off the Senate entirely and focus on the House. Or, of course, the presidency.
There are even a few statewide offices, both executive and judicial, and state legislative majorities hanging in the balance. We’ve seen the impact of control of state courts in literally hundreds of important election law cases, and may see many more in what is likely to be a multistate post-election struggle.
And let’s not leave out the organizations working to protect voting rights, monitor and safeguard the various electoral processes, pursue and respond to litigation, and report and comment on it all so that the public, if it so chooses, can stay informed and lies, big and small, can be exposed. All have a significant role to play in the weeks and months to come.
I think it’s fair to say we, the living, have never faced an election so simultaneously existential, multifronted, close, and strategically confounding. It’s an enormous challenge, logically daunting, conducive to emotional decision-making and even paralysis. You and I both have my sympathies.
But the fact is, if you have money you can and wish to spend on this election, it’s triage time.
I suppose the first question is “What is this one worth?” I suspect the answer spectrum for that one is miles wide: I would not be surprised if at least a few among our millions said something to the effect of “Here, take my nest egg — whatever it takes to stop Trump, Project 2025, fascism.” While others think “My little won’t matter and I may need every penny to protect myself and my family against that very onslaught.” And everything in between.
But whatever the heft of one’s commitment, the choice of how to apportion it must somehow be made.
One possible approach is to delay until the various prospects become clearer, though they may be just as uncertain a month hence. Another is to contribute now to party distributors like the Democratic National Committee, DCCC, and/or DSCC (or their GOP counterparts if that is your persuasion) and hold a portion of your budget for candidates you select based on shifts as the election draws closer. Candidates and PACs rely on such contributions for late ad blitzes.
The official record of campaign financing can be found here. You can consider which campaigns, including Harris’s, are already well supported or enjoy a funding advantage and thus may be less in need — though one must assume there’ll be plenty of Big Dark Money funneled to Trump should the need arise. You can consider the relatively greater impact of $X dollars for a Senate campaign in a smaller state relative to a larger one (House districts are all roughly the same size). You can check the polls, consult the pundits, and trust your own hunches.
All you can do is gather info, sort through it, dig deep, and do your best. And hope that others do likewise and that it all pays off to save our democracy
