The small subset of the country that pays attention to midterm elections is focused this year on the United States Senate. The House of Representatives, due to gerrymandering, Democratic clustering and a roughly tied generic ballot is going to stay Republican, sadly. The Democrats' 55 seat majority in the Senate is, of course, in major peril. But you can read about that on any number of secretly giddy political prognostication sites (looking at you, Charlie Cook!).
The races that are somewhat under the radar (for Governor's offices) and completely under the radar (state legislatures) are the ones I would like to focus on. Unlike conservatives and Wall Street Democrats, the progressive grassroots has a finite amount of money and time to give to political races. We must spend our dollars and donate our hours in a way that will give the highest marginal benefit to the progressive cause.
U.S. Senate campaigns are deluged with tons of $$ from both sides. In high profile races, the main candidates will have plenty of money to saturate the airwaves with TV ads. The strength of our dollar or effort will thus have a comparatively low impact. Furthermore, once our preferred candidates do make it to the Senate, they'll be stuck in a broken-down sausage factory. Sure, with new filibuster rules, these Senators can have a big impact in staffing the executive and judicial branches with more progressives. But with filibusters for legislation, and a solidly Republican House, the potential return on investment is somewhat limited.
Money given to U.S. House candidates can go a bit further. Many good candidates with plausible chances of winning are legitimately underfunded. But with the major institutional obstacles to Democratic control mentioned above, the amount of progressive policy you will get per dollar/hour wont' be very high.
The area you will get the most value is at the state level. Controlling Governor mansions are extremely important. A Democratic Governor in Kentucky is the difference between a well-run health insurance exchange and not even a Medicaid expansion. A Democratic Governor in Virginia means that the threat of trans-vaginal ultrasounds can stay on the shelf for a few years. On the other side of the ledger, Democratic gubernatorial losses in 2010 have yielded some catastrophic policy outcomes. Scott Walker, Tom Corbett, John Kasich and Rick Snyder have turned blueish midwestern states into laboratories for anti-labor, pro-big business "paradises." And I won't even mention what we've lost after two crushing defeats in New Jersey.
Within governor's races, there is a strong variance as to how far your money/time will go toward achieving good policies. Of course, a dollar in a small state with cheap media markets will go further than one in a large state with expensive media markets. Getting a message out to 500,000 people is a lot easier than getting a message out to 30 million people. The flip side is that you're only influencing the policy of 500,000 people,and not 30 million. To really get the most value, you should donate to candidates in states in which governors have stronger powers. For example, in Michigan the Governor has full responsibility for the state's budget making power and can line item veto appropriations bills. Conversely, in Colorado the Governor shares responsibility for the budget, has no line item veto power. With scarce resources, assuming equally good candidates, it would make more sense to send money and time to Michigan. If you really want to play Moneyball, go to this site and play around with the Council of State Government tables.
The real gold mine is at the State Legislative level. If you take away one thing from this diary, USE YOUR RESOURCES TO DONATE AT THE STATE LEGISLATIVE LEVEL. First, while some state races are expensive, your dollar is guaranteed to go much further in a race for 40,000 or even 100,000 constituents than it does for 750,000 constituents in a House District. Heck, if you have a lot of time and some money, you should run yourself. State filing fees (if the deadline hasn't passed) are generally pretty low. If you live in New Hampshire you should really consider running. Each House District represents only a few thousand people.
Second, the impact of State Legislative elections are enormous, and enormously underrated. The only reason Governors Walker, Kasich, Corbett and Snyder were able to implement anti-worker legislation is because they brought in Republican legislatures with them. State legislatures also can get things done, and relatively quickly. Wendy Davis had to stage her famous filibuster, because Texas Republicans really could jam through anti-abortion legislation in one day. In the Maryland General Assembly (where I have some experience), the minority can, at most, delay legislation for a day. If a majority wants something to pass, it can pass. Since the last major slate of State Legislative elections in 2010, the following has happened at the state level:
-California went from a massive deficit to a massive surprlus with its new Democratic supermajority.
-Illinois, Delaware, Rhode Island, Maryland and Hawaii approved same-sex marriage legislation.
-Michigan (Michigan!) instituted right-to-work laws.
-32 state legislatures have enacted restrictions on abortion procedures.
-North Carolina has become a mecca for terrible conservative policies (ending unemployment insurance, curtailing voting hours etc).
And that is just a very small sample of the kind of profound change happens during short periods at the State level. The races aren't sexy, and are rarely talked about, even by state media sources. But state legislative races are the best opportunities to maximize the progressive policy per dollar/hour donated ratio.