| Likely D |
Lean D |
Tossup |
Lean R |
Likely R |
OR-Sen: Merkley
$343K (Portland, Eugene, Medford, Bend)
MN-Sen: Franken
$597K (Minneapolis, Duluth, Fargo, Rochester, Mankato)
NH-Sen: Shaheen
$714K (Boston)
VA-Sen: Warner
$1,297K (Washington, Norfolk, Richmond, Roanoke, Harrisonburg, Charlottesville)
|
MI-Sen: Open
$575K (Detroit, Grand Rapids, Flint, Lansing, Traverse City, Marquette, Alpena)
|
AK-Sen: Begich
$92K (Anchorage, Fairbanks, Juneau)
AR-Sen: Pryor
$187K (Little Rock, Ft. Smith, Jonesboro)
IA-Sen: Open
$255K (Des Moines, Cedar Rapids, Davenport, Sioux City, Ottumwa)
KS-Sen: Roberts
$265K (Wichita, Kansas City, Topeka, Joplin)
LA-Sen: Landrieu
$381K (New Orleans, Baton Rouge, Lafayette, Shreveport, Monroe, Lake Charles, Alexandria)
CO-Sen: Udall
$474K (Denver, Colorado Spgs., Grand Jct.)
NC-Sen: Hagan
$735K (Raleigh, Charlotte, Greensboro, Greenville SC, Greenville NC, Wilmington)
|
KY-Sen: McConnell
$260K (Louisville, Lexington, Evansville, Bowling Green)
|
SD-Sen: Open
$79K (Sioux Falls, Rapid City)
MT-Sen: Open
$155K (Missoula, Billings, Butte, Great Falls, Helena, Glendive)
WV-Sen: Open
$225K (Charleston, Bluefield, Clarksburg, Wheeling, Parkersburg)
GA-Sen: Open
$909K (Atlanta, Savannah, Macon, Augusta, Albany, Columbus, Tallahassee)
|
The third quarter fundraising deadline is fast approaching (September 30), so if you're thinking about giving money to candidates this year, now is the time to do it. In part, there's the matter of making the last ad reservations before the election, so if you suddenly decide to give to somebody just a few weeks before the election, that's probably too late for them to do anything useful with your money. And more importantly, the national committees and other big money, third-party groups look at fundraising reports, along with polling, as one of the key indicators in deciding where to place their bets for the stretch run. Netroots money by itself can't win a big race, but it can lay down a marker for the people with the real money to follow.
Along those lines, last week we talked about where to best spend your money to make sure that it's going to actual progressives (or at least candidates who are as progressive you're going to get in a swing district), by looking at ideology scores for Democratic candidates and the disparity with their opponents. There's a whole 'nother dimension to considering where to give your hard-earned dollars, though, and one that's a little more cold-blooded: where your dollar will go the furthest, given the relative costs in different races.
Think of it this way: suppose you have only a finite amount of money (let's say $100) to spend on one race. It'll go a lot further in a race that's in a cheap media market than one in an expensive market. One hundred dollars to a candidate in, say, Wyoming might actually pay for an airing, or even multiple airings, of an ad. One hundred dollars to a candidate in New York would pay for only the tiniest fraction of an ad. Your investment reaches more people, and hopefully changes more minds, in the smaller, cheaper market. An investor would call it "leverage," a sports fan would call it the "Moneyball" approach. (You may have seen this approach before; quantitative analysts like Nate Silver and Sam Wang have dabbled in it, and I talked about it a lot in 2012.)
Our discussion continues over the fold:
We'll talk about gubernatorial and House races below, but we'll start by looking at the Senate, since that's where most of the tension and uncertainty is this election cycle. I've reproduced the Daily Kos Elections ratings chart for the Senate races, but I've also added the relative costs for each race, and ordered the races within each competitiveness category from cheapest to most expensive. By keeping them in different categories instead of all in one heap, it's easier to keep the importance of the races in mind in addition to the costs.
For instance, you'll notice that South Dakota is the least expensive of all the races, clocking in at only $79,000 to buy a full flight of ads. (In other words, 1,000 gross ratings points, or the cost of making sure that an ad runs at least 10 times in the outlets that will get it to 100 percent of its intended audience. The list of cities after the dollar figure is all the media markets that fee would cover. It's media buyers' "recommended" markets for each state, which is usually most, but not all, of the markets that touch a state. As a random example, even though about 5 percent of all Kentuckians are in the Nashville market, you wouldn't buy there because it's expensive, only a small part of the state, and you're paying to reach a lot of people who can't vote for you. If you're wondering what percentage of each state and each congressional district is taken up by each media market, Daily Kos Elections has a handy spreadsheet to tell you just that.)
However, the South Dakota race isn't one of the races that's likely to be decisive in terms of who controls the Senate after November; there's enough uncertainty in it that we still consider it competitive, but a Democratic win here would be a major upset. Instead, it's the races in the "Tossup" column that the entire question of who controls the Senate pivots around. Here by far the most efficient race is Alaska, which is only slightly more expensive than South Dakota at $92,000 for the full flight of ads and yet may well be the race that decides who's majority leader next year.
As you look at the different states, you'll notice that for the most part, there's a clear correspondence between the population of the states and the costs. The two least populous states in the chart, for instance, are also the cheapest (Alaska and South Dakota), and yet they still elect the same number of senators as the most expensive states. The most populous states (North Carolina, Georgia) are among the most expensive. However, there's not a direct correspondence; Virginia is more expensive than North Carolina or Georgia, even though it's a bit less populous. That's because some states suffer more than others from a wasted-eyeball problem. In Georgia, the major city (Atlanta) is pretty centrally located, so its media market doesn't spill over much into other states. On the other hand, in Virginia's largest media market—the Washington, D.C., market—a Virginia candidate has to pay through the nose to reach millions of people in Maryland and the District of Columbia who'll never have the chance to vote for him or her.
I'm going to go one step further, though, and try to incorporate the competitiveness of each race. As I did in 2012, I'm adding some weight to the most important races by leaving the "Tossup" races at the same value, but multiplying the cost of somewhat-less-competitive "Lean" races by two, and multiplying the cost of barely competitive "Likely" races by three. It may be oversimplifying the problem (a race like Montana, where the Democratic candidate has a 1 percent chance of winning, should probably be down-weighted a lot more than threefold when compared with a truly 50/50 race like Iowa), but it still helps the races that are both most efficient and likeliest to affect control of the Senate rise to the top.
AK-Sen (Tossup) 92K x 1 = 92K
AR-Sen (Tossup) 187K x 1 = 187K
SD-Sen (Likely R) 79K x 3 = 237K
IA-Sen (Tossup) 255K x 1 = 255K
KS-Sen (Tossup) 265K x 1 = 265K
LA-Sen (Tossup) 381K x 1 = 381K
MT-Sen (Likely R) 155K x 3 = 465K
CO-Sen (Tossup) 474K x 1 = 474K
KY-Sen (Lean R) 260K x 2 = 520K
WV-Sen (Likely R) 225K x 3 = 675K
NC-Sen (Tossup) 735K x 1 = 735K
OR-Sen (Likely D) 343K x 3 = 1,029K
MI-Sen (Lean D) 575K x 2 = 1,150K
MN-Sen (Likely D) 597K x 3 = 1,791K
NH-Sen (Likely D) 714K x 3 = 2,142K
GA-Sen (Likely R) 909K x 3 = 2,727K
VA-Sen (Likely D) 1,297K x 3 = 3,891K
Naturally, Alaska remains the top pick, with other tossup races in Arkansas and Iowa not far behind it. (You might want to further incorporate ideology into your own framework, too, if really want to fine tune your contribution decisions. For instance, you might not feel like giving to the Blue Doggish Mark Pryor regardless of how much bang for the buck you get in Arkansas, while it's not much more expensive than that to give to the much more acceptable Bruce Braley in Iowa.)
Now let's try the same approach with the gubernatorial elections:
| Likely D |
Lean D |
Tossup |
Lean R |
Likely R |
RI-Gov: Open
$125K (Providence)
OR-Gov: Kitzhaber
$343K (Portland, Eugene, Medford, Bend)
MN-Gov: Dayton
$597K (Minneapolis, Duluth, Fargo, Rochester, Mankato)
NH-Gov: Hassan
$714K (Boston)
MA-Gov: Open
$900K (Boston, Springfield, Providence)
PA-Gov: Corbett
$1,100K (Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Harrisburg, Wilkes-Barre, Johnstown, Erie)
MD-Gov: Open
$1,281K (Washington, Baltimore, Salisbury)
|
HI-Gov: Open
$87K (Honolulu)
CO-Gov: Hickenlooper
$474K (Denver, Colorado Spgs., Grand Jct.)
|
ME-Gov: LePage
$112K (Portland, Bangor, Presque Isle)
KS-Gov: Brownback
$265K (Wichita, Kansas City, Topeka, Joplin)
WI-Gov: Walker
$365K (Milwaukee, Green Bay, Madison, La Crosse, Wausau)
MI-Gov: Snyder
$575K (Detroit, Grand Rapids, Flint, Lansing, Traverse City, Marquette, Alpena)
FL-Gov: Scott
$2,184K (Miami, Tampa, Orlando, W. Palm Beach, Jacksonville, Ft. Myers, Mobile, Tallahassee, Panama City, Gainesville)
CT-Gov: Malloy
$2,714K (Hartford, New York City)
|
AK-Gov: Parnell
$92K (Anchorage, Fairbanks, Juneau)
AR-Gov: Open
$187K (Little Rock, Ft. Smith, Jonesboro)
SC-Gov: Haley
$331K (Greenville SC, Charleston, Columbia, Myrtle Beach, Augusta)
AZ-Gov: Open
$699K (Phoenix, Tucson, Yuma)
IL-Gov: Quinn
$1,355K (Chicago, Champaign, Peoria, Rockford, Davenport, Paducah, Quincy)
|
NM-Gov: Martinez
$109K (Albuquerque)
NE-Gov: Open
$183K (Omaha, Lincoln, N. Platte)
IA-Gov: Branstad
$255K (Des Moines, Cedar Rapids, Davenport, Sioux City, Ottumwa)
GA-Gov: Deal
$909K (Atlanta, Savannah, Macon, Augusta, Albany, Columbus, Tallahassee)
TX-Gov: Open
$2,961K (Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, Austin, Harlingen, Waco, Tyler, El Paso, Corpus Christi, Beaumont, Lubbock, Amarillo, Odessa, Abilene, Wichita Falls, Laredo, San Angelo, Sherman, Victoria)
|
You'll notice that what's especially cheap here is Hawaii and Alaska, which have small populations. Also, they don't have a wasted-eyeball problem because they don't have neighboring states that their signal spills over into. (In fact, the Alaska figure still leaves a lot of Alaskans out, who simply can't be reached by broadcast TV at all because they live so remotely.) Rhode Island is also inexpensive, but so is New Mexico—nearly everyone in the state falls in the Albuquerque market, which also barely spills over the state lines.
ME-Gov (Tossup) 112K x 1 = 112K
HI-Gov (Lean D) 87K x 2 = 174K
AK-Gov (Lean R) 92K x 2 = 184K
KS-Gov (Tossup) 265K x 1 = 265K
NM-Gov (Likely R) 109K x 3 = 327K
WI-Gov (Tossup) 365K x 1 = 365K
AR-Gov (Lean R) 187K x 2 = 374K
RI-Gov (Likely D) 125K x 3 = 375K
NE-Gov (Likely R) 183K x 3 = 549K
MI-Gov (Tossup) 575K x 1 = 575K
SC-Gov (Lean R) 331K x 2 = 662K
IA-Gov (Likely R) 255K x 3 = 765K
CO-Gov (Lean D) 474K x 2 = 948K
OR-Gov (Likely D) 343K x 3 = 1,029K
AZ-Gov (Lean R) 699K x 2 = 1,398K
MN-Gov (Likely D) 597K x 3 = 1,791K
NH-Gov (Likely D) 714K x 3 = 2,142K
FL-Gov (Tossup) 2,184K x 1 = 2,184K
MA-Gov (Likely D) 900K x 3 = 2,700K
IL-Gov (Lean R) 1,355K x 2 = 2,710K
CT-Gov (Tossup) 2,714K x 1 = 2,714K
GA-Gov (Likely R) 909K x 3 = 2,727K
PA-Gov (Likely D) 1,100K x 3 = 3,300K
MD-Gov (Likely D) 1,281K x 3 = 3,843K
TX-Gov (Likely R) 2,961K x 3 = 8,883K
When you add the weighting based on the categories of competitiveness, though, Maine really comes to the forefront. Maine is a very efficient buy, with three small markets with little spillover across its borders. In addition, it looks even better when you factor in the ideological distance between Democratic challenger
Mike Michaud and Republican incumbent Paul LePage, a particularly abrasive leader with some questionable
right-wing friends. Also often forgotten (since he came out recently in low-key fashion): Michaud would be the nation's first out LGBT governor.
A little further down the list, Wisconsin is a surprisingly good buy because it's a medium-sized state but one without a lot of wasted eyeballs. Contrast that with, say, Pennsylvania or Texas, which have mostly ceased being competitive (Pennsylvania in a good way, Texas in a bad way), and on top of that, are some of the most expensive places to advertise. When you multiply those factors, they're very inefficient, Texas especially. On a per capita basis, the very important gubernatorial race in Connecticut also suffers, since it involves advertising in the nation's most expensive market, New York City, where most of the viewers can't even vote in Connecticut.
Finally, let's take a look at the situation in the House:
| Likely D |
Lean D |
Tossup |
Lean R |
Likely R |
HI-01: Open
$87K (Honolulu)
IA-02: Loebsack
$181K (Des Moines, Davenport, Cedar Rapids)
OR-05: Schrader
$237K (Portland)
NV-04: Horsford
$259K (Las Vegas)
IL-11: Foster
$1,075K (Chicago)
CA-03: Garamendi
$1,798K (San Francisco, Sacramento)
CA-31: Open
$1,846K (Los Angeles)
CT-04: Himes
$2,532K (New York City)
NY-04: Open
$2,532K (New York City)
|
IA-01: Open
$53K (Cedar Rapids)
NY-24: Maffei
$61K (Syracuse)
CA-36: Ruiz
$85K (Palm Springs)
ME-02: Open
$95K (Portland, Bangor)
IL-17: Bustos
$120K (Davenport, Rockford, Peoria)
FL-18: Murphy
$132K (W. Palm Beach)
GA-12: Barrow
$133K (Augusta, Savannah)
TX-23: Gallego
$312K (El Paso, San Antonio)
CA-07: Bera
$414K (Sacramento)
MN-07: Peterson
$421K (Minneapolis, Fargo)
AZ-09: Sinema
$554K (Phoenix)
MA-06: Open
$714K (Boston)
NH-02: Kuster
$790K (Boston, Burlington)
NY-18: Maloney
$2,532K (New York City)
CT-05: Esty
$2,714K (New York City, Hartford)
|
FL-02: Southerland
$86K (Panama City, Tallahassee)
AZ-02: Barber
$97K (Tucson)
WV-03: Rahall
$104K (Charleston, Bluefield)
IA-03: Open
$156K (Des Moines, Omaha)
IL-12: Enyart
$270K (St. Louis, Paducah)
CA-52: Peters
$375K (San Diego)
CO-06: Coffman
$384K (Denver)
MN-08: Nolan
$409K (Minneapolis, Duluth)
AZ-01: Kirkpatrick
$554K (Phoenix)
FL-26: Garcia
$702K (Miami)
NH-01: Shea-Porter
$716K (Boston)
IL-10: Schneider
$1,075K (Chicago)
CA-26: Brownley
$1,846K (Los Angeles)
NY-01: Bishop
$2,532K (New York City)
NY-11: Grimm
$2,532K (New York City)
|
MI-01: Benishek
$84K (Traverse City, Marquette, Alpena)
AR-02: Open
$86K (Little Rock)
NE-02: Terry
$95K (Omaha)
CA-21: Valadao
$168K (Bakersfield, Fresno)
NY-21: Open
$197K (Albany, Burlington, Watertown)
NY-23: Reed
$199K (Buffalo, Elmira, Syracuse)
NV-03: Heck
$259K (Las Vegas)
IL-13: Davis
$280K (Champaign, St. Louis)
MI-08: Open
$346K (Detroit, Lansing)
PA-06: Open
$657K (Philadelphia)
VA-10: Open
$906K (Washington)
WV-02: Open
$973K (Charleston, Washington)
NJ-03: Open
$3,189K (New York City, Philadelphia)
|
IN-02: Walorski
$45K (South Bend)
IA-04: Mowrer
$96K (Des Moines, Sioux City)
VA-02: Rigell
$112K (Norfolk)
OH-06: Johnson
$137K (Charleston, Wheeling, Youngstown)
MT-AL: Open
$155K (Missoula, Billings, Butte, Great Falls, Helena, Glendive)
NM-02: Pearce
$195K (Albuquerque, El Paso)
AR-04: Open
$204K (Ft. Smith, Little Rock, Shreveport)
WI-06: Open
$242K (Milwaukee, Green Bay)
WV-01: McKinley
$263K (Pittsburgh, Clarksburg, Parkersburg, Wheeling)
OH-14: Joyce
$268K (Cleveland)
NC-02: Ellmers
$269K (Greensboro, Raleigh)
MI-11: Open
$302K (Detroit)
MI-07: Walberg
$346K (Detroit, Lansing)
MN-02: Kline
$381K (Minneapolis)
CA-10: Denham
$414K (Sacramento)
CO-03: Tipton
$474K (Denver, Colorado Spgs., Grand Jct.)
NJ-02: LoBiondo
$657K (Philadelphia)
PA-08: Fitzpatrick
$657K (Philadelphia)
NY-19: Gibson
$2,624K (New York City, Albany)
|
Given the sheer number of races we're looking at in the House, I'm not going to do the table with the weighted values. For the most part, I'd recommend not spending your money on the barely competitive "Likely D" and "Likely R" races, although you might make an exception for the Daily Kos-endorsed
Jim Mowrer in Iowa's 4th District, where you have not only a great guy running against the execrable Steve King, but also a very cheap district involving two small markets.
On the other hand, you'll notice a common thread in most of the very inexpensive House races—the Democratic candidates (whether they're incumbents like Ron Barber in AZ-02 and Nick Rahall in WV-03, or challengers like Gwen Graham in FL-02 and Brad Ashford in NE-02) tend to be very much on the Blue Doggish side of the ledger. For the most part, that's just a product of geography: the progressive members of the House caucus tend to be located mostly in the nation's cities, which are the most expensive places to advertise, and for the most part are also in dark blue districts where once you've won the primary you don't need to worry much about the general, so few of them ever show up on our lists of competitive races. The rural districts, or the ones with one medium-sized, isolated city, tend to be the swingier districts, and also the districts where you're more likely to get a more conservative candidate.
Three possibilities that I'd call your attention to, which are remarkably efficient, are the open seats in IA-03, IA-01, and ME-02. The race in the 3rd, being vacated by Republican Tom Latham, is one of the few districts in the country where the Democrats have a good chance to pick up a seat. Staci Appel, who has a fairly progressive record in the Iowa state Senate, has led the few polls of this race against Republican David Young. Iowa's 1st and Maine's 2nd are Democratic-held open seats and already leaning pretty solidly in the Democratic direction, but in both places, a chance for minor upgrades over Bruce Braley and Mike Michaud. Pat Murphy (in Iowa ... not to be confused with Pennsylvania ex-Rep. Patrick Murphy or Florida Rep. Patrick Murphy!) and Emily Cain were both progressive leaders in their respective state legislatures.
If you're wondering where you can look this data up yourself, unfortunately, this is about the most you can see. We've obtained some very rough data from friendly Democratic media-buying sources, but more precise versions of this data isn't in the public domain and are, in fact, pretty zealously guarded by its keepers. Moreover, you shouldn't try to use this sketchy information to engage in your own media buying. Not only is it slightly out-of-date, but there are disparities between what different kinds of clients pay to get ad space. Candidates, for instance, are able to buy TV time at a lower rate than the national committees or Super PACs, one more reason why you should give directly to the candidates of your choosing, in addition to the more obvious angle of making sure that only candidates you actually like wind up getting a share of your money.
One other important caveat is that if you give money to candidates in the more expensive-looking races, especially at the House level, that money isn't necessarily going to be wasted. In many of those races, candidates don't even think in terms of broadcast TV being a possibility becasue races where broadcast TV ads are too expensive tend to be waged through mailings, targeted cable TV ads, online advertising, and even good ol' GOTV organizing. So don't assume that if you give money to a high-dollar district that it'd be frittered away inefficiently. This post is just intended to give you an overview of the relative cost differences among the various states and congressional districts, and help you spot the unusually good opportunities for you to leverage your donations.
