Connect with us

Democrats

Analysis: Democrats have more money, Republicans have financial sense

Published

on

Analysis Democrats have more money Republicans have financial sense

A great deal of financial information on campaigns is made available and easy to navigate courtesy of the Center for Responsive Politics. I have analyzed data from the CRP on the 14 battleground Senate races occurring in this midterm election. Perhaps you’ve seen many headlines about Democrats doing well with fundraising, most notably as of late Beto O’Rourke’s fundraising feat. In fact one of the first findings was how much the Democrats have raised despite the rhetoric that Republicans are the “party of the rich”. But it is well known, or at least it should be, that money alone doesn’t win elections. Candidates do.

In analyzing the data I sought to see whether the devotion of funds by Democrats and Republicans would give insights to predicting the midterm results. Instead, I found that Republicans are generally more strategic with their donating. In my earlier piece, Mapping the Senate in the midst of midterm elections, I analyzed 14 battleground races setting up the stage for further exploration and analysis. Here I analyze the same data from those same 14 races to see if the money can bring some clarity to the various toss ups.

Republican Best Case Scenario

In an absolute best case scenario, the Republicans hold on to all of their seats and flip 9 Senate seats from blue to red. Those seats are identified in pink. The pink states in addition to the red would give the GOP a massive legislative advantage if also matched by a good day for their House candidates. 9 seats is a red tsunami, but netting 3 or 4 is still a fantastic day that will surely crush Democrat expectations of a Blue Wave.

Best Case Scenario For Democrats

This is the absolute best case scenario for Democrats, 51 seats. This would give the Democrats just enough power, if united, to control the Senate. It requires the Blue Wave to maintain all of its seats and win over an additional 3 seats from Republicans. Note: the race in Texas is not close enough to be considered in this scenario and while we’re at it neither is North Dakota, but if Democrats are to control the Senate every incumbent is in a must win.

The Republican Financial Disadvantage

The Democrats have far more seats to defend and far more seats to lose. So with having incumbents, generally means having more money. A few incumbents, however, are being outspent such as Bill Nelson (D-FL), Bob Menendez (D-NJ), Dean Heller (R-NV), and even Ted Cruz (R-TX). There are two vacant seats held by Republicans where Democrats have the financial advantage (Arizona and Tennessee). Is money a huge advantage or have the Democrats discovered the concept of diminishing returns?

It is very possible Democrats are putting more money than necessary in campaigns. Take Ohio where they have a $23 million dollar advantage in a race where the Republican candidate is a longshot. This graph is particularly meaningful in measuring the efficiency of each party with campaign funds. Republicans, like Ted Cruz, have demonstrated a deal of business sense when it comes to managing campaigns in the past.

Most Skilled Democrat Campaigners

The largest slice of the blue money pie is gong to Beto O’Rourke. Despite being a longshot, Beto has accomplished great feats in fundraising. Conservatives aren’t as intimidated by O’Rourke’s fundraising and media attention as one might think. This 61 million dollar campaign is loaded with funds that otherwise could have gone to more competitive Democrats.

Overall the Democrats’ breakdown is a reflection of the most savvy campaigners. But even Phil Bredesen is a solid candidate who only received 5.11% of the pie. Heidi Heitkamp is shorted in her struggling incumbent bid. And almost nobody wants to help out Bob Menendez who received the smallest slice. The Democrats are after the bigger states in both size and population. They want Ted Cruz out of the Senate badly. They want to hold on with a Democrat in the swing stat of Florida.

There also appears to be a certain amount of over spending among the Democrats. Sherrod Brown is likely going to win in Ohio and enjoys a insurmountable financial advantage. Of all the Democrat funds he should have received around what was dedicated to the campaign in Michigan.

The distribution of Democrat funds shows ambition but little coherence to an overall strategy. The slice of the pie seems dependent on the gravitation of their candidate. It’s less about flipping seats and keeping the GOP at bay rather than supporting popular candidates.

The Republican Triage

In contrast, the Republican distribution of funds shows an obvious triage. Longshots like John James in Michigan and Jim Renacci in Ohio are getting little. The effort in Florida, on the other draws the most attention. Florida receiving 18% shows a disproportionate vested interest in the state. This can be attributed to Rick Scott, a party favorite and a formidable candidate to oust Bill Nelson. The Senate race is also nicely aligned with the gubernatorial race. The Republicans, if smart, will want to tilt Florida red keeping it from being a swing state in 2020 and beyond. A big election win here would help in that effort. Another factor at play is redistricting in 2020. Florida is anticipated to be awarded 2-3 congressional seats. At number two is Ted Cruz. Texas being a larger state and the Democrats bringing a more enthusiastic candidate are the reason for that. At three and four are Missouri and Arizona.

The Republicans aren’t throwing money at lost causes. The highest risk for Republicans in a conventional sense appears to be Bob Hugin in New Jersey. Yet the staunch blue state will likely see difficulty in reelecting a scandal ridden incumbent. Republicans sense blood and are investigating in the race at a rate comparable to Indiana or Tennessee.

The most effortless win in the election may in fact come from the ousting of Heidi Heitkamp in North Dakota. The Republicans throwing less than 3% behind a challenger is a bargain of a return. All signs in North Dakota point to a GOP victory, and the Republicans will achieve that despite being outspent. Another interesting contrast is that the Republicans aren’t overspending in any of these battleground Senate races. The largest argument for overspending may be found in Texas, but while Cruz is slated to win, he will still have to work for that win.

Takeaway

In contrast, the Republican distribution of funds is more economical. They reflect both the size of the state and the chances of winning. This takes away from what previously, in Chart 3, could have suggested that the GOP underfunded its Senate candidates in various states. Instead the Republicans are revealed to run their campaigns like a business or investment.

Meanwhile, the Democrats finance their campaigns as a whole like a popularity contest that is a reflection of how popular their candidate is along with how unpopular the Republican candidate is, to them. And while this overall trend is drawn from the donations of many individuals and organizations, that is the source of the significance. Republicans, both individuals and organizations, are very economical about their financial contributions.

The next question is: are they just as economical with their campaign spending as they are with their giving? This question can only be answered in full after the midterm election, but North Dakota appears to be evidence of that answer being yes.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Democrats

Is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez really Jewish?

Published

on

By

Is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez really Jewish

The congresswoman’s Jewish possible ancestors shouldn’t be a problem for anyone. But the idea that her leftist stands are somehow authentically Jewish is troubling.

 At a time when DNA tests are a national craze, as well as source of political controversy, we shouldn’t be surprised about claims of Jewish identity from anyone. But when they come from someone as controversial as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the expressions of joy and dismay about her possible connection to the tribe were predictably partisan and downright foolish.

The incoming member of Congress from Queens, N.Y., made headlines when she told those in attendance at a synagogue Hanukkah party in her district over the weekend that “a very, very long time ago, generations and generations ago, my family consisted of Sephardic Jews.”

As she explained, the people of her native Puerto Rico are descendants of many different strains of immigrants, including those Jews who fled Spain in the 15th century. Within her family’s collective memory is some sense of having been descended at least partly from such Jews.

Those who already liked the young Democratic Socialist, who has become the rock star of her party, were thrilled that she could be claimed as part of the family. On the other hand, Jews who dislike her leftist politics were disgusted. It was a rerun of what happened when House Speaker Paul Ryan found out that his DNA was 3 percent Ashkenazi Jewish during historian Henry Louis Gates’s “Finding Your Roots” PBS TV program. Liberal Jews responded to that item with nasty partisan abuse, as well as declarations that he wasn’t wanted. Ocasio-Cortez’s detractors were quick to use the same sort of invective.

But those who accused her of attempting to steal Jewish identity weren’t being fair. This is unlike the antics of fellow Democrat Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who attempted to back up her claims of Native American identity with a DNA test that showed that, at best, she was 1/64th descended from either the Cherokee or Delaware tribes. Ocasio-Cortez wasn’t pretending to be Jewish or trying to show that DNA was identity, let alone to justify using it for personal advancement as the senator allegedly did when she claimed to be the first “woman of color” to be named a professor at Harvard Law School.

Attacks on her for mentioning her Catholic family’s memories of their partial Jewish past were inappropriate. We know that 20 centuries of post-exile persecution has resulted in many branches falling away from the Jewish ancestral tree, so her story is hardly uncommon. It is also a heartening sign of the times that prominent non-Jews are proud about their Jewish roots, rather than—as would have been the case in the not-so-distant past—feel shame about it.

The tenuous connections between her family, or that of Ryan and any long-lost Jewish ancestors, are merely intellectual curiosities. Still, two aspects of the issue are worth some comment.

One is the danger that someone with some claims to Jewish identity will use it selectively in order to justify taking a stand against Israel. Over the decades, we’ve seen that happen with a number of writers or politicians who have few ties to their Jewish heritage, yet trot it out as a credential that enables them to express anger, embarrassment or outrage about the conflict in the Middle East. The “not in my name” meme in which Jews who know next to nothing about Israel and its geopolitical dilemmas seek to disassociate themselves from Israelis fighting for their lives is despicable. If Ocasio-Cortez were ever to use such a rhetorical device to justify siding with her close allies—incoming House Reps. Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib—who are supporters of the anti-Semitic BDS movement that seeks Israel’s destruction, that would be outrageous.

Yet there’s another more serious argument to be addressed. It’s the theme sounded in the Forward after the latest Ocasio-Cortez story broke—that the Socialist politician is actually more authentically Jewish because of her politics than conservative or Zionist Jews.

Part of this mindset is the notion that modern American political liberalism and Judaism are interchangeable. It’s more than just an old joke to say that many American Jews conceive of their faith as more or less the Democratic Party platform with holidays thrown in. While it’s an insult to Judaism to conceive of it as nothing more than an elaborate theological justification for partisan politics, it’s also true that many American Jews see their faith as determining their votes. In that sense, there are Jews who see American Jewish conservatives or supporters of the government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as representing a point of view that is alien to their conception of what it means to be Jewish.

More troubling is the idea that a loose sense of identity in which a multicultural frame of reference about the world—as opposed to a strictly Jewish one—is more representative of the way young Jews think today. Given the demographic implosion of non-Orthodox Jews in the United States, it is hardly surprising that some Jews think this way, but the consequences in terms of a decline in a sense of Jewish peoplehood are obvious and serious. If we begin to worship inclusion and diversity to the point where Jewish parochialism and nationalism, even in its most benign forms, are rejected as illiberal, then we will be part of a community that stands for nothing and is incapable of sustaining itself.

The real tragedy is that too many young Jews see Jewish observance or Zionism as antithetical to their progressive political views. If we get to the point where Ocasio-Cortez’s sensibilities about Israel or those of others on the left who might falsely regard Zionism as a form of racism because it contradicts their intersectional beliefs are accepted as legitimate Jewish perspectives, that will be a disaster. If such views are seen as more authentically Jewish than that of a typical Israeli or an affiliated Jew, then we will have arrived at a point where Jewish identity in this country for all too many of us will be nothing more than a meaningless percentage on a DNA test.

Jonathan S. Tobin is editor in chief of JNS — Jewish News Syndicate. Follow him on Twitter at: @jonathans_tobin.

Continue Reading

Democrats

Schumer, Pelosi demonstrate why Democrats are right to want new blood in leadership

Published

on

Schumer Pelosi demonstrate why Democrats are right to want new blood in leadership

Today’s episode of Kabuki theater in DC featured Senator Chuck Schumer and Representative Nancy Pelosi playing partisan politics as usual. It was embarrassing for both of them, and while President Trump wasn’t flawless in his counterattacks, his arguments were sound and he left with the upper hand going forward.

Let’s set aside the border wall or government funding debate for a moment and focus on the tired tactics employed by the two leaders of the Democratic Party on Capitol Hill. One would think that by now, they’d know how to handle their White House nemesis, but they don’t. They even handed the President a victory by letting him “take the mantle” of the impending government shutdown. By accepting responsibility for shutting down the government for the sake of border security, the President demonstrated a rare case of rational and unexpected turning of the tables on the Democrats.

Schumer and Pelosi likely see it as a victory, but when it’s spun and respun in the minds of the people, they’ll realize he did what Schumer and his cronies have always failed to do. He took responsibility for his actions. He is taking a stand and noted that during the previous shutdown, which was initiated by Schumer, everybody pointed fingers. Nobody took responsibility. This is going to count for something.

But let’s get back to the need for new blood in Democratic leadership. I am neither a Republican nor Democrat; currently I’m a conservative Independent who believed in the Federalist Party when I co-founded it but have grown disenchanted with the current direction of that party, so I essentially have no horse in this race. I am by no means rooting for Democrats or offering them advice, but as an impartial observer I can say their recent victories in the midterm election will be meaningless if they retain current leadership.

The only thing funnier than watching Schumer fumble about with his attempt at righteous indignation was watching Pelosi handle her own inspired moment with the elegance of an orangutan. Her attempts to chastise the President were forced and fumbled. She seemed completely outwitted and outmatched.

Democrats can do better. I don’t want them to do better; having Chuck and Nancy leading the charge will only embarrass the Democrats more. But it’s still noteworthy after listening to some of the more eloquent members of their caucus that these two are no longer in touch with the people they purportedly represent.

As the party continues to drift further to the left, Schumer and Pelosi are remnants of days past when bipartisanship and brinkmanship could coexist. That’s not the case today and it may never be the case again. They’re part of the same elite their party despises.

Continue Reading

Democrats

Trump to meet with Democrats about border wall, shutdown

Published

on

Trump to meet with Democrats about border wall shutdown

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump and Democratic congressional leaders are seeking to avert a partial government shutdown amid a sharp dispute over Trump’s border wall and a lengthy to-do list that includes a major farm bill and a formal rebuke of Saudi Arabia for the slaying of journalist Jamal Khashoggi.

Trump is set to confer Tuesday at the White House with House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer ahead of a Dec. 21 deadline to shut down a range of government agencies.

“Republicans still control the House, the Senate and the White House, and they have the power to keep government open,” Pelosi and Schumer said in a joint statement Monday.

“Our country cannot afford a Trump Shutdown,” the Democrats said, adding that Trump “knows full well that his wall proposal does not have the votes to pass the House and Senate and should not be an obstacle to a bipartisan agreement.”

Republican congressional leaders have repeatedly said it’s up to Trump to cut a deal with Democrats, an acknowledgement of their own inability to produce spending bills with Republican votes alone.

That gives Democrats some momentum heading into the closed-door talks, which also could veer into Trump’s request for emergency funding for deadly wildfires in California and a Republican-sponsored bill to extend expiring tax breaks and delay some health care taxes.

Before lawmakers adjourn for the year they also may consider a bipartisan criminal justice reform bill, a bill to protect special counsel Robert Mueller and a plan to overhaul the system for handling sexual harassment complaints on Capitol Hill.

By far the biggest unresolved issue is the border wall. Trump wants the next funding package to include at least $5 billion for it, an idea Democrats have flatly rejected.

Pelosi and Schumer have urged Trump to support a bill that includes a half-dozen government funding bills largely agreed upon by lawmakers, along with a separate measure that funds the Department of Homeland Security at current levels through Sept. 30. The homeland bill includes about $1.3 billion for fencing and other security measures at the border.

If Trump does not agree to that, Democrats will likely urge a continuing resolution that funds all the remaining appropriations bills at current levels through Sept. 30, an aide said. The aide was not authorized to discuss strategy by name and requested anonymity.

Trump said Friday that Congress should provide all the money he wants for the wall and called illegal immigration a “threat to the well-being of every American community.”

At an appearance in Kansas City, Missouri, Trump accused Democrats of playing a political game and said it was one he ultimately would win.

“I actually think the politics of what they’re doing is very bad for them,” Trump said of Democrats. “We’re going to very soon find out. Maybe I’m not right. But usually I’m right.”

Pelosi, who is seeking to become House speaker in January, said she and many other Democrats consider the wall “immoral, ineffective and expensive” and noted that Trump promised during the 2016 campaign that Mexico would pay for the wall, an idea Mexico has repeatedly rejected.

Protecting borders “is a responsibility we honor, but we do so by honoring our values as well,” Pelosi said last week.

Schumer said Democrats want to work with Trump to avert a shutdown, but said money for border security should not include the concrete wall Trump has envisioned. Instead, the money should be used for fencing and technology that experts say is appropriate, Schumer said.

“We do not want to let a Trump temper tantrum govern our policies or cause the shutdown of a government, which everyone on both sides of the aisle knows is the wrong idea,” Schumer said. If Trump “wants to shut down the government over Christmas over the wall, that’s his decision,” he said.

Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy, the top Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee, said Trump was all that stands between fully funding the government and a shutdown.

“Time and again, President Trump has used the government of the American people as a bargaining chip for his fabricated solution to his manufactured crisis,” Leahy said Monday in a Senate speech.

Trump “wants to score a made-for-reality-TV moment and he doesn’t care how many hardworking Americans will suffer for it,” Leahy said. “This is not about border security. This is about politics, pure and simple.”

But House Majority Whip Steve Scalise, R-La., said Democrats were the ones playing politics.

Trump “wants to secure the border. He got elected president on that platform,” Scalise told Fox News Channel.

If there’s a better way to secure the border than the $5 billion plan Trump has laid out, Democrats “need to come with an alternative,” Scalise said Monday. “They can’t come and say they want to shut the government down for no reason because they don’t want border security. They’ll lose that argument with the American people.”

Senate Appropriations Chairman Richard Shelby, R-Ala., said Monday he does not believe Trump or Democrats want to shut the government down.

“When I was with him the indication was he didn’t want to shut the government down, but he did want his wall,” Shelby said.

___

AP Congressional Correspondent Lisa Mascaro contributed to this report.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement Donate to NOQ Report

Facebook

Twitter

Trending

Copyright © 2018 NOQ Report