Crunching the numbers on the DCCC allocations, wins, losses..from DWT

[madfloridian]

Take time to read this post at the Down With Tyranny blog. The analysis was done from FEC records by a fellow named Drasin who is a computer technologist, software developer.

On Edit: forgot link.
http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2006/11/how-rahm-failed-just-facts-analysis-of.html

There are numbers, charts, spreadsheets, and some very interesting data presented. He concentrates on the money spent by the DCCC on various races. It is very long, but worth reading all of it. I will just post the analyis here.

Here is a statement by Drasin:

Summary: The DCCC strategy of race targetting did NOT spend dollars efficiently. If it had been the dominant investment pattern, the House may not have gone for the Dems. A big "thank you" is needed to Howard Dean's DNC and all the other groups that pushed for the 50 state strategy to expand the competive races and keep them alive for the duration.

Here are some key points from his analysis. Be sure to look at the figures he presents.

Analysis:
- If the DCCC "swing state" strategy had been the guiding strategy for all investment throughout the cycle, the Dems might not have retaken the House.
- The winning margin of races were kept alive all through the cycle into October by other (generally progressive) investors following the 50-state strategy (as well as local grassroots support of excellent candidates). In October, the DCCC finally began investing in some of the races and helped close them out in the Dem column-- but absent the previous investment, it is unlikely that these races would have been competive in October and so would not have been able to tip the balance in the House.
- The additional margin of victory (wave) came from districts that the DCCC never invested in at all (even with polling showing the races as competitive).
- The DCCC concentrated an enormous amount of money in some very expensive races that did NOT end up breaking for the Dems. This money, or at least some of it, could have been more efficiently spent on less expensive races that were also close.
- The DCCC bias toward swing-states and non-grassroots, so-called "centrist" or pro-Business candidates prevented it from investing in a number of key races (many of them winners).

The blogger writes that he is not so much after WHO gets credit as to WHAT strategy worked and the implications for the future.

Now I know there are those out there who will say, "Hey, we all played a part; why do we need to fight about assigning credit?" And there's an element of truth to that. I'm really not interested in finding out WHO deserves the credit, but more WHAT (strategy) deserves the credit. Certainly this is important for the next election cycle, but also for how to govern for the next 2 years.

It sounds like there may be more cooperation going into 08, which will be a very good thing for all of us. As the poster said, it is not about "who", it is about "what" works.

[madfloridian]

1. A little more from DWT...and a thank you post from McNerney at DFA blog

"In September, the DCCC spent crazy money in some expensive markets that didn't fall (600K in KY4, 500K in OH15, 350K in PA6, 300K in VA2) and still NO money in a number of races that were eventual pickups or close recount situations (or had polls showing them as competitive-- CA-11, CT-02, IA-02, KS-02, KY-03, NC-08, NH-01, NH-02, NY-19, OH-02, PA-07, and WY-AL). They underspent in some additional races that were pickups (like PA-08) or very close (like WA-08) as well.

At the same time, the races where the DCCC didn't spend, were kept alive by different groups (like MoveOn, The Netroots, Blue America, etc working through ActBlue) following different investment strategies (like the 50-state strategy.) The ALL Contributions in PICKUPS tab shows all investment (by all parties) in each of the districts by time-period. This gives an idea of the total amount of money effecting these races and hence the impact that DCCC participation (both in dollars and publicity) would have had."

And today Jerry McNerney, who got support mainly from grassroots...posts at the DFA blog with his appreciation for the groups who worked with him..there were many.

http://www.blogforamerica.com/view/18674

This is why I bolded the CA 11 race above.

"This was a people-powered victory that you helped make possible by volunteering and contributing to our campaign for change. Back in June, when the pundits and power-brokers didn't think we could defeat one of Washington's most powerful congressmen, you cast thousands of votes to help me win DFA's 2006 "Grassroots All-Star" online congressional competition, providing us with the crucial early funding and buzz we needed to compete and win in November.

I give thanks to DFA and everyone who helped our amazing campaign demonstrate that grassroots (and netroots) organizing works, no matter the political odds."