Let's play DCCC Chairman for a minute. What is the best strategy for taking back the House as quickly as possible?
We have to realize that we cannot win back the House as long as we lose 25-30 potential seats to gerrymandering in states like TX and FL. Thus, the DLCC must push hard in key states (like AZ, which will probably pick up another district or two for 2012). We must also make a push for independent re-districting nationwide with the goal of virtually eliminating partisan gerrymandering before the 2020 census goes into effect. So, what is the DCCC to do? We must realize that the House is not winnable with the current set of maps. We must look to put ourselves in the best position for 2012, not 2006. How?
Let's play DCCC Chairman for a minute. What is the best strategy for taking back the House as quickly as possible?
We have to realize that we cannot win back the House as long as we lose 25-30 potential seats to gerrymandering in states like TX and FL. Thus, the DLCC must push hard in key states (like AZ, which will probably pick up another district or two for 2012). We must also make a push for independent re-districting nationwide with the goal of virtually eliminating partisan gerrymandering before the 2020 census goes into effect. So, what is the DCCC to do? We must realize that the House is not winnable with the current set of maps. We must look to put ourselves in the best position for 2012, not 2006. How?
- We must retain our slim minority status. If we go into the next re-districting cycle with less than 200 seats, we will not take back the House anytime soon. We need to pick out a few (15-20) winnable open and GOP seats and protect our own. However, DCCC money should only be used for the 10 or so races where it will be most effective. The others will have to fend for themselves.
- We need to look long-term. What is the biggest advantage the GOP has in the House elections? Money. We need to begin a 3-cycle operation aimed at draining the GOP's money supply. In doing so, we need to field 300 viable candidates in 2006, 330 in 2008, and 360 in 2010. What do I mean by viable? Well, first, safe seats are automatically a part of that category. For the others, I mean contested races in which our guy spends at least $1 million. 300 candidates will not bring 300 victories. In fact, we might not do any better in 2006 than in 2004, but that is not the point. The point is that $1 million in expenditures will forces GOPers to spend at least $1.5 million to preserve their seats. We should target the 50 biggest GOP war chests and any GOPers who are potential Gov. and/or Senate candidates for the next cycle. Why? Because when GOPers go unchallenged, they keep fund-raising. Eventually, you have a large group of GOPers with upwards of $3-4 million on hand. That gives them huge advantages in otherwise close Senate and Gov. races and makes otherwise close House races lean GOP as money flows in from the richer members of the caucus. Hopefully, we will be much closer to even financial footing by 2012, but only if we target our spending wisely. The good news is that we don't need to spend as much as them for this to work. The rule of thumb is that it takes at least $1 million to unseat an incumbent. Well, if we spend $1-1.5 million, they will spend $1.5-2.5 million and there reserves will be depleted much faster than ours. We won't win races that way, but that's not the point. If the House is not winnable right now, why try to win it? We must plan for the future.