Republican Money Can't Stave Off New Peril in Senate

[question everything]

The Wall Street Journal

Republican Money Can't Stave Off New Peril in Senate

Chances Rise for Democrats Controlling Both Houses As Funding Gap Narrows
Paying a Scandal Premium
By JEANNE CUMMINGS
October 14, 2006; Page A1

(snip)

Mounting fears of a growing anti-incumbent wave have led many well-off party veterans to hoard more of their war chests to protect themselves, rather than share with more vulnerable colleagues as they usually would... Republicans have increasingly concentrated on three Senate seats -- Tennessee, Missouri and Ohio -- to try to salvage at least a one-seat majority. They currently hold 55 of the Senate's 100 seats, but at least six of those are now seen as vulnerable. The party's national and Senate campaign accounts have recently spent $14.1 million to hold the seats of retiring Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee, Missouri Sen. Jim Talent and Ohio Sen. Mike DeWine -- with $8 million spent on Mr. DeWine alone. Yet most polls show Democrats still leading in all three races. That spending comes at the expense of other vulnerable incumbents, including Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum and Montana Sen. Conrad Burns, who are also both running behind. They are getting voter turnout help but not independent advertising support from the national party.

(snip)

Republicans are used to having more money than Democrats but this year the margin is narrower. And Republican money needs to be spread across an unusually large number of races. Those tight contests in turn are creating an air-time crunch that is sending advertising costs soaring compared with just two years ago. Republicans also are paying a scandal premium. The uproar over Rep. Foley has made it harder for Republican candidates to break through with their desired message. Other recent ethical scandals, such as the Abramoff lobbying case, also have raised the effective price to elect some Republican candidates. A large number of the toughest Republican races this year are concentrated in expensive urban media markets, particularly in the Northeast. That means Republicans must spend more on defense, and can't invest as heavily in offense.

(snip)

The Republican House campaign committee has reserved about 20% of its national television advertising budget -- $10 million -- just for the Philadelphia market. That is because three House Republicans are endangered there. But that doesn't buy nearly as much airtime as it used to. A 30-second commercial before an 11 p.m. local newscast cost $1,509 in 2004. The current price: $3,044, according to TNS Media Intelligence/cmag, which tracks political advertising... The investment in Philadelphia means House leaders have to forgo spending elsewhere. After their favored candidate lost in an Arizona primary, the House Republican campaign committee canceled television time it had reserved for the general election contest for that open seat, which now is likely to flip from Republican to Democrat. Party leaders are debating shifting resources away from a Colorado open seat, which also could become a Democratic pickup. And wealthy House incumbents, such as Indiana Rep. Chris Chocola, are being told to dip into their own personal fortunes to pay for their re-elections rather than waiting for a handout from the national committees.

(snip)

A study by the Campaign Finance Institute, a nonpartisan Washington organization that tracks political money, also holds unsettling news for Republicans. Democratic candidates vying in competitive districts are in their best financial position in years, raising an average of $1 million in the first 18 months of this campaign cycle, compared with an average $1.7 million by the Republican incumbents. At the same point in 2004, Republican incumbents enjoyed a four-to-one advantage over their challengers.

(snip)


URL for this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB116078955259592774.html (subscription)

[TygrBright]

1. One thing this doesn't mention is...

...that business, corporate, and special interest big money is suddenly diminishing as they try to hedge their bets by donating to Dems.

::sigh::

ambivalently,
Bright

[sce56]

2. They still have the Diebold option!