Hoping to cut House losses, Dems try for firewall

fgarvb1

We are in for it now.
Joined
Dec 10, 2000
Posts
12,729
By JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS, Associated Press Writer Julie Hirschfeld Davis, Associated Press Writer – 1 hr 48 mins ago

WASHINGTON – Struggling to build a firewall against a Republican takeover, congressional Democrats are pouring money into roughly two dozen tight races around the country in the campaign's closing weeks while pulling it back from others where their chances seem slimmer.

With polls showing Republicans increasingly well-positioned to seize control of the House, the Democrats are planning TV ad blitzes to shore up their best-positioned incumbents and a handful of challengers in races they believe they can still win.

At the same time, they're scaling back advertising plans to help a number of lawmakers including Reps. Betsy Markey of Colorado, Harry Teague of New Mexico and Steve Driehaus and Mary Jo Kilroy of Ohio. They've also cut back on ad campaigns to defend Democratic-held open seats in Indiana and Kansas.

The party strongly denies it's abandoning these candidates, some of whom are benefiting from Democratic-leaning outside groups that are spending on their behalf. And advertising plans are changing daily at this critical juncture.

But the shifting of resources — along with analysis of the parties' spending and interviews with Republican and Democratic strategists — paints a clear picture of the damage-control effort.

Officials and operatives in both parties spoke to The Associated Press about the strategy on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to detail the plans.

At stake is control of the House — where Democrats hold 255 seats, Republicans 178, and there are two vacancies — and the power to press or block key elements of President Barack Obama's agenda midway through his term. All 435 seats are on the ballot, and more than 75 are competitive, the vast majority now held by Democrats. Republicans need to gain 40 seats to win control.

Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, head of the Democrats' House campaign arm, said his operation is supporting all Democrats and he's confident of maintaining control. But he acknowledged that an aggressive strategy is needed to stop Republicans from reaching deep into Democratic territory.

Republicans are "going to try and run the table, but they're going to run into a hard wall of reality that a lot of these members are in very strong positions," Van Hollen said.


Not likely, Republicans say.

"Throughout the summer and now into the fall, the playing field has continuously expanded, pulling once-safe Democrats into the fray to join their endangered colleagues," Rep. Pete Sessions of Texas, the head of the party's House campaign committee, wrote in a memo this week.

Van Hollen's Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has reserved at least $52 million of TV advertising in 65 districts, slightly more than it had planned to pour into races around the country. The National Republican Congressional Committee now plans to invest $45 million in 62 districts — more than double what it had initially budgeted — to make a play for more than 20 additional seats beyond those the party first envisioned.

Democrats said they were focusing on stopping the bleeding where possible, including trying to salvage the seats of several threatened lawmakers who earlier this year looked like safe re-election bets. They include Colorado Rep. John Salazar, Georgia Rep. Sanford Bishop, Illinois Rep. Phil Hare, and Indiana Rep. Joe Donnelly, and Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton of Missouri.

For now, the party is also spending to try to preserve the jobs of Democrats in conservative or swing territory, including Rep. Frank Kratovil in Maryland, Mark Schauer in Michigan, Scott Murphy, Bill Owens and Mike Arcuri in New York, John Boccieri and Zack Space in Ohio, and Glenn Nye and Tom Perriello in Virginia.

The party also is fighting to keep Democratic-held open seats in Arkansas, Washington and Wisconsin, and to claim two now held by the GOP in Illinois and in Miami, Fla.

Much can change in coming days, as officials watch internal polls to determine whether these and other vulnerable incumbents still have a chance to win tight races.

Republicans plunked down more than $45,000 this week for advertising in Democratic-leaning Massachusetts district being vacated by retiring Democratic Rep. Bill Delahunt, and Democrats shelled out almost twice that to try to keep the seat in their column.

There are also a plethora of high-stakes games of cat-and-mouse between the two parties unfolding across the political map, with each side trying to prod the other into gambling with limited resources.

Republicans are reaching into districts Democrats were counting on winning — such as Rep. Ben Chandler's in Kentucky and Murphy's in upstate New York — and spending heavily, forcing Democrats to follow suit. They've also reserved $800,000 to advertise against Space, goading Democrats into answering them or pulling out altogether.

The Republicans are trying to capitalize on Democratic weakness, spreading their cash to create a wave to sweep into power. As the majority seeks to build a dam, the GOP is focused on creating new trouble spots, daring Democrats to divert resources from districts where they trail to defend seats they once thought of as safe.
 
Thus goeth the world of politics.. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose and sometimes, it rains....
 
Dems have it made. All they have to do is campaign on their accomplishments.
 
Strategy has limited value. As Democrats pull resources in some contests to concentrate on others, Republicans can respond by pulling resources from the same contests to concentrate on others themselves.
 
The Democrats are in serious trouble cuz Americans wanna get some payback. If the GOP fails to shape up it'll get whacked in 2012.
 
The Democrats are in serious trouble cuz Americans wanna get some payback. If the GOP fails to shape up it'll get whacked in 2012.

Correct. Democrats are feeling the heat now, just as Republicans did in 2006 and 2008, but both parties are running out of rope.
 
They just pulled up stakes on the daughter of Widow Carnahan...



Probably a good thing because she was reduced to linking Talent to Bush at a time when Bush has pulled nearly even with Obama in the approval ratings...
 
They just pulled up stakes on the daughter of Widow Carnahan...

Probably a good thing because she was reduced to linking Talent to Bush at a time when Bush has pulled nearly even with Obama in the approval ratings...

You keep saying that, yet President Obama's approval rating is more than 20 points higher than Shrub's final rating of 22% positive and a disapproval of 73%. Bush finished FAR below the ratings of other recent two term Presidents Clinton and Reagan (who both finished with a final approval rating of 68%). Hell, even Carter's single term approval rating ended a full 22 points higher than Shrub.

In fact, President Obama's approval rating is no better or worse than Reagan or Clinton at this point in their first term. Clinton's approval rating actually improved the longer he stayed in office, as did Reagan's to a point, while W's was a constant downward slide for his entire time in office.

The only thing that saved him from being even lower on approval was the patriotic surge after Sep 11 when his approval rating shot up by over 30 points to nearly 90% (but that didn't last long).

But tout the single question in a single opinion poll that supports what you want to be true, Facts be damned so long as you can find a pant leg to grab onto and shake for all it's worth. :rolleyes:
 
We're talking about RIGHT NOW.




NOW after almost two years of OBAMA, people are beginning to see more clearly...
 
You keep saying that, yet President Obama's approval rating is more than 20 points higher than Shrub's final rating of 22% positive and a disapproval of 73%. Bush finished FAR below the ratings of other recent two term Presidents Clinton and Reagan (who both finished with a final approval rating of 68%). Hell, even Carter's single term approval rating ended a full 22 points higher than Shrub.

In fact, President Obama's approval rating is no better or worse than Reagan or Clinton at this point in their first term. Clinton's approval rating actually improved the longer he stayed in office, as did Reagan's to a point, while W's was a constant downward slide for his entire time in office.

The only thing that saved him from being even lower on approval was the patriotic surge after Sep 11 when his approval rating shot up by over 30 points to nearly 90% (but that didn't last long).

But tout the single question in a single opinion poll that supports what you want to be true, Facts be damned so long as you can find a pant leg to grab onto and shake for all it's worth. :rolleyes:

Under the great and powerful George W. Bush, the House gained republican seats in his first midterm.

Lets see how Obama does and leave the popularity polls for picking the homecoming queen.
 
UD

Obama morphed into Jimmy Carter along the way.

November 2nd wont be pleasant for you.
 
By patriotic "surge" do you mean supporting the military, but not the mission while doing everything including demanding defeat in the war to undermine Bush but twice voted for the war to prove toughness heading into an election?



We always said, in hindsight, Bush would be a better President than the press tried to portray to assist the Democrats in their drive to create a new Marxist state in the Western hemisphere...

And all it took was Obama to make Bush look better with each passing month of 9.6% unemployment (AND THAT'S THE COOKED NUMBER!!!).
 
UD

Obama morphed into Jimmy Carter along the way.

November 2nd wont be pleasant for you.

Quit denigrating Jimmy Carter, who was, at least, a nice man.

Obama, as we tried to point out, was a cold-hearted ideologue from day one. What else can you call a guy who votes to murder the survivors of abortion?

He was truthful with Joe, the Plumber, but because of his skin color, we were told not to look behind the curtain, keep focused on the GREAT OZ!!!

People need to reread that book for the economic metaphor...
 
We're talking about RIGHT NOW.




NOW after almost two years of OBAMA, people are beginning to see more clearly...

Tout the single question in a single opinion poll that supports what you want to be true, Facts be damned so long as you can find a pant leg to grab onto and shake for all it's worth.

:rolleyes:
 
Well, there will be more polls.

One coming up in early November that will be a referendum on the happiness people have with Obama/Pelosi/Reid and their transformative change that just might indicate a changing attitude towards those "reckless, spendthrift" Republicans and the "chimp" who kept us in such dire economic straights, according to his press, eight long years of a "lost decade..."

;) ;)

You, on the other hand, went apeshit crazy with comparing Obama's Pres__ent with the Bush past...

As if people were still focused on blaming Bush.

Trust me. Now, they blame Obama...
 
We're talking about RIGHT NOW.




NOW after almost two years of OBAMA, people are beginning to see more clearly...
*shrug* Now after almost two years of Obama, some people with unexpectadly high hopes are having to face reality that he's just a guy. There are always a bunch of those. Come crunch time 2012 it will all depend on what the options is.

While the people with unexpectadly high fears are still lost in la-la land. Firmly parked in their zealous belieif that he is the Big Satan. Nothing he could, have or will do for them will change their mind.
 
Back
Top