Summary of House Expenditures

Looking over where the DCCC has spent so far, we see a very wide landscape of races. Here are some facts about the spending in easy-to-peruse summary form:

*As of 10/15, the DCCC has weighed-in in 51 separate House races, to the tune of approximately $38 million.

*Over the same period, the NRCC has waded into 15 House races, spending around $5.1 million.

*Of the races the DCCC has spent on, 35 are on offense (districts currently held by Republicans), and just 16 are on defense (districts currently help by freshman or other vulnerable Democrats).

*The NRCC's spending is much more defensive: just 4 of the districts the committee has spent on so far are currently controlled by Democrats, and the other 11 are currently held by endangered Republicans.

What does this all mean? Simply that the Democrats have spent a lot to shore up some vulnerable incumbents on their side, but for the most part, even early-on here in October, their targets have been primarily on offense. By over 2-to-1 split, the DCCC has already spent in GOP-held districts. Conversely, the NRCC is giving up on all challengers (which is their now-announced policy), and spending its resources in a handful of specifically targeted races where a stalwart Republican (i.e. Steve Chabot, Tim Walberg, Lincoln Diaz-Balart, Phil English) is in huge danger of losing his seat.

The data shows that the DCCC has been both ambitious in its initial targets, as well as generous in even the most Republican districts imaginable. Dropping well over $2 million in AL-02, KY-02, and MD-01 -- districts which have an average PVI of around R+12 -- is astonishing on its face.

In fact, let's look closer at the political nature of the 51-so-far-targeted districts. I have broken up these fifty into fives, and right below are the PVI averages for each grouping:

Group 1 (AZ-01, OH-16, NC-08, OH-15, NH-01, AZ-05, MN-03, NM-01, AZ-03, AK-AL): Average PVI: R+3.3. Of these districts, only two are currently held by Democrats, the other eight are offense targets. Only one of these districts leans Democratic -- NM-01 -- and another one is R+0, so I did not include that one since it could lean either way. Furthermore, I acknowledge that Alaska's insane PVI skews this result some, but it's in the top-ten, so it has to be in the average. An R+3.3 number indicates a decided GOP lean, but not overwhelmingly so. The reason is that these districts represent low-hanging fruit to Democrats: these are the types of districts that for one reason or another are very likely to be endangered in a tidal wave year because they are not deep Republican. In this case, half of the seats are open seats, which is why they are even more vulnerable to a switch. Two more (AK-AL and AZ-03) are threatened because of tarnished incumbents.

Group 2 (NJ-07, OH-01, MD-01, PA-11, NV-03, NY-26, MI-09, IL-11, CT-04, PA-03): Average PVI: R+1. This is a slightly less Republican group of districts than the first one. This is interesting because you would figure that the most highly-targeted districts for the DCCC would be the ones that themselves lean most Democratic. Yet, a district's particular lean is only one factor in whether a seat becomes flippable. Indeed, above, five of the top ten are open seats. Additionally, congressmen like Don Young and John Shadegg have had varying ethics problems which have hampered them. Here, only one of the seats is Democratically-held -- by an incumbent seeking re-election, no less -- and the other nine are offensive targets. Four of them are open seats, and six of them have incumbents seeking re-election. Only two of these districts are Democratic-leaning. We see, then, that this current second-tier (and it is current because the DCCC's totals will be changing basically daily, so this is a snapshot of things at this moment), is slightly less Republican, but mostly because the Democrats' are trying to save Paul Kanjorski, and because there are more GOP incumbents here.

Group 3 (MI-07, NM-02, PA-10, IN-09, FL-24, NJ-03, VA-11, LA-06, KY-02, AL-02): Average PVI: R+5.7. Now we're talking. This is a very red group. Half of these are area open seats, including two in very swing districts one of which (NJ-03) leans pretty well to the left. Three of these races are currently Democratically-held, but these happen to all be seats in very Republican areas, namely northeast Pennsylvania, southern Indiana, and around Baton Rogue, Louisiana. These three have an average PVI of R+7.3 What puts this group over the top in terms of a high PVI are the two southern open seats, both with PVIs of R+13. That these are even on the radar for Democrats is nuts. MI-07 and NM-02 are themselves Republican, but nowhere near as red as the southern seats.

Group 4 (WA-08, FL-21, AL-05, IL-10, CO-04, FL-16, MO-06, TX-23, TX-22, WI-08): Average PVI: R+4.2. This is another GOP-heavy tier. This one is a bit lower on the DCCC totum poll for a few reasons. First, only one of these ten seats is open, the other nine have incumbents running for re-election. The lesson: open seats are much easier to flip for either party. An open seat boasts no popular or well known incumbent to fight, and is thus easier to turn for the challenging part and harder to protect for the controlling party. Second, five of the ten are currently-Democratic held. That these are so low shows that the DCCC is confident of holding these seats for one reason or another. If the DCCC was worried about the incumbents here, they would be spending more. I would guess that TX-23 and WI-08 would fall lower and lower in the coming days and weeks, as the DCCC becomes satisfied that Ciro Rodriguez and Steve Kagan are safe. Ditto FL-16, but conversely because the party has abandoned Dirtbag Hall of Famer Tim Mahoney. I also see several race that will rise in spending very soon: FL-21, TX-22, and CO-04, for reasons we outlined in our analyses of these races.

Group 5 (MO-09, AZ-08, CA-11, VA-02, NY-29, IN-03, NY-25, NE-02, MS-01, ID-01, NH-02): Average PVI: R+7. This is a red list, but that is because it is filled with some big reaches. Really, this final tier of spending is made up exclusively of either fast-risers or big-fallers. In layman's terms, a race here will either jump up the list in spending, or it will drop off completely. There is no in between. I see AZ-08, CA-11, and MS-01 as races the DCCC will not spend much in again. These are small defensive measures by the Democrats, and clearly they are content to let these safe incumbents fend for themselves. Ditto NY-25, which is now GOP-held, but only because a Republican win here would be extremely unlikely. IN-03, ID-01, NE-02, MO-09, and VA-02 could go either way, depending on how the DCCC feels. That the DCCC announced it is dropping half a million in the northeast Indiana seat is certainly indicative of a likely direction there. Finally, as we have talked about, watch for heavy spending to begin in NY-29, as that seat looks likely to turn.

Group 1: R+3.3
Group 2: R+1
Group 3: R+5.7
Group 4: R+4.2
Group 5: R+7

What does this all mean? Well, that at this moment, the DCCC is targeting it heaviest funding on low-hanging fruit -- i.e. open seats and districts that are not overwhelmingly red -- as well as on protecting a handful of Democrats. As we go further down the list, the seats become redder on average, with less open seats, and more entrenched incumbents. While these individuals will be harder to dislodge for the Democrats, as noted throughout this series, I would expect spending to heavily increase in a lot of them, depending of course on individual factors.

Again, this is just an analysis of spending up to this point. We are at the beginning of the end of the process, an incredibly volatile period. Spending by both committees, but particularly the Democrats, will soon start at a frenetic pace; in fact, it may already be beginning.

The whole point of these posts is just to highlight at look at how things stand today. I have zero doubt that this top-51 list will not only expand, but that races will move around on this list as the DCCC decides to cut spending in some and and expand big in others. Heck, in a few days or certainly a week, a lot of this could be totally irrelevant. Nevertheless, I think looking at these numbers today gives us a picture not just of where the DCCC's highest priorities lie, but also to illustrate how and why the commitee decides to spend where it spends.