Map of U.S. television markets (dishuser.org)
While it's too premature to start declaring the presidential race finished, that cake is smelling a little more baked each day. With that in mind, a young man's fancies turn increasingly toward thoughts of down-ballot races, and the importance of preserving our Senate majority and eating into the Republican edge in the House. Given the many options there, though, that raises the question of where to contribute.
Daily Kos's endorsements, like the Speaker Pelosi Project, are a great place to start. There are a number of potential angles to consider in where to contribute, though, and another consideration is how "efficient" a contribution is likely to be... in other words, how effectively will our netroots dollars be spent? While we don't have a way of knowing whether or not a campaign will make good strategic decisions, one thing we can evaluate is whether the media markets where a race will take place are good buys.
Think of it this way: a $100 contribution gets stretched a lot further in a race with a cheap media market, where there are few eyeballs to reach, than in a race with expensive markets. In, say, Wyoming, that $100 might actually buy you an airing or multiple airings of an ad; in New York, your investment would buy you the tiniest fraction of an ad. Your 'investment' is a lot likelier to pay dividends -- in the form of more viewers, and hopefully more changed minds -- in the cheaper market. In other words, in a cheaper market, you can exert a lot more leverage.
You'll probably notice, looking at the chart below, that there's a strong relationship between the population of a state and the cost of advertising there. That's because, quite logically, the more viewers are in a market, the more it costs to buy ad space there. However, the efficiency question is complicated by the question of 'wasted eyeballs,' being forced to pay to advertise to people for whom the ad isn't relevant. Many media markets cross state lines, and that means that a campaign buying ads in those markets is paying for eyeballs that can't vote in that election.
It's not a huge issue in the presidential race, since even when ads bleed over from swing states into non-swing states, everyone is still voting in the same election. It's a much bigger issue in Senate races, though (and even worse in House races, where in the biggest metropolitan areas, a contested district may be one of dozens). Consider, for instance, the Virginia Senate race, where the largest percentage of the state's voters live in the Washington DC market, one of the nation's most populous and expensive markets... but in order to advertise there, that means spending millions of dollars to beat residents of Maryland and the District of Columbia (and, for that matter, Delaware, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia) over the head with your irrelevant ads. As you can see below, the wasted-eyeball phenomenon is even worse in the states that border New York City.
Information about how much it costs to advertise in a particular district isn't public and difficult to come by, but we've obtained some rough data from Democratic media-buying sources. (Don't use these figures to engage in your own media buying; these are slightly outdated numbers, and there's also a disparity in the amounts charged to various clients. Candidates, for instance, pay a different rate than third-party groups like the national committees or Super PACs, who wind up paying considerably more. I'm merely giving you these numbers to give you a sense of the magnitude of the difference between cheap markets and expensive markets. The overall ratio is what you should be focused on.)
The amount of money given for each race is the amount to run a full flight of ads. In media-buying jargon, that would be the amount needed to ensure that an ad airs 10 times in outlets that will get it to 100% of the intended audience. For the statewide races, the given markets don't necessarily blanket the entire state, but are simply media buyers' "recommended" markets (which tend to exclude markets that cover less than, say, 10% of the state's population). A campaign that's feeling particularly stingy (or engaged in some skillful microtargeting) could choose to avoid certain markets and save money, or if they're especially flush, they could also choose to advertise in markets beyond the "recommended" parameters. (For instance, Florida's Bill Nelson might choose to put some money into the Dothan, Alabama market in addition to the 10 other recommended markets, just to make sure the Panhandle gets completely blanketed.)
Here is the Senate chart; the closer to the top a race is, the more "efficient" a pick it is...
| State |
Markets |
Cost |
| North Dakota |
Fargo, Minot |
60K |
| Hawaii |
Honolulu |
75K |
| Maine |
Portland, Bangor, Presque Isle |
114K |
| New Mexico |
Albuquerque |
115K |
| Nebraska |
Omaha, Lincoln, No. Platte |
150K |
| Montana |
Missoula, Billings, Great Falls,
Butte, Helena, Glendive |
154K |
| West Virginia |
Charleston, Bluefield, Clarksburg,
Wheeling, Parkersburg |
200K |
| Nevada |
Las Vegas, Reno |
272K |
| Wisconsin |
Milwaukee, Green Bay, Madison,
La Crosse, Wausau |
276K |
| Indiana |
Indianapolis, Ft. Wayne, So. Bend,
Evansville, Terre Haute, Lafayette |
345K |
| Missouri |
St. Louis, Kansas City, Springfield,
Columbia, Paducah, Joplin, St. Joseph, Ottumwa |
519K |
| Washington |
Seattle, Spokane, Yakima |
577K |
| Michigan |
Detroit, Grand Rapids, Flint, Lansing,
Traverse City, Marquette, Alpena |
581K |
| Arizona |
Phoenix, Tucson, Yuma |
676K |
| Massachusetts |
Boston, Springfield, Providence |
762K |
| Ohio |
Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati,
Dayton, Toledo, Youngstown, Wheeling,
Lima, Zanesville, Parkersburg |
778K |
| Pennsylvania |
Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Harrisburg,
Wilkes-Barre, Johnstown, Erie |
1,082K |
| Virginia |
Washington, Norfolk, Richmond,
Roanoke, Charlottesville, Harrisonburg |
1,473K |
| Florida |
Tampa, Miami, Orlando,
W. Palm Beach, Jacksonville, Ft. Myers,
Mobile, Tallahassee, Panama City, Gainesville |
2,516K |
| Connecticut |
Hartford, New York |
3,050K |
| New Jersey |
New York, Philadelphia |
3,470K |
As you can see, by far the best advertising deal among all the nation's remotely-competitive Senate races is North Dakota. It's one of the least populous states, and it doesn't have much of a wasted-eyeball factor either (the Fargo market does extend many miles into Minnesota, but those are pretty empty miles). Former Attorney General Heidi Heitkamp is our candidate there, as we try to hold the open seat left by Kent Conrad's retirement, and a contribution to her goes about 57 times further than a contribution to New Jersey's Bob Menendez. (As far as advertising goes, at least; contributions certainly pay for GOTV, advertising in other media, and simple organization. But broadcast TV is very much the largest expense for a campaign in a competitive statewide race.) And at the end of the day, Heitkamp would be one more Senator, worth exactly as much as Menendez toward a majority.
Of course, ideology matters too, not just the business of getting to a majority. While Heitkamp and Montana's Jon Tester are some of the most "efficient" picks (and great campaigners), their more moderate profiles may not appeal to all netroots donors. Nevertheless, there are some very progressive options at the bargain end of the scale, most notably Mazie Hirono and Martin Heinrich in the open seats in Hawaii and New Mexico, respectively. Both Hirono and Heinrich are part of Daily Kos's Upgrade the Senate program.
There's much more discussion over the fold...
Of course, it doesn't really matter that West Virginia and Maine are super-efficient states to advertise in (not that you're likely to want to give money to conservadem Joe Manchin or flaky quasi-independent Angus King anyway), since those races are barely competitive, and not likely to be make-or-break races that decide the Senate majority. (Manchin and King have led easily in the few polls we've seen of those races, and Daily Kos Elections currently rates them both Likely Democratic.)
So, I've added an extra dimension, trying to incorporate the importance of the race as well. I've kept Tossup races at the same value, while multiplying somewhat-less-competitive "Lean" races by 2 and barely-competitive "Likely" races by 3, which places the most weight on the hottest races. The races that are the most efficient and likeliest to help determine whether the Dems keep the majority rise to the top. Notably, that's still North Dakota and Hawaii (which benefits by not having any wasted eyeballs at all, thanks to not having any neighbors), while expensive and uninteresting states like New Jersey and Washington get pushed even further down.
| State |
Cost |
Rating |
Adjusted
cost |
| North Dakota |
60K |
Tossup |
60K |
| Hawaii |
75K |
Lean D |
150K |
| Montana |
154K |
Tossup |
154K |
| New Mexico |
115K |
Lean D |
230K |
| Nevada |
272K |
Tossup |
272K |
| Wisconsin |
276K |
Tossup |
276K |
| Maine |
114K |
Likely I |
342K |
| Nebraska |
150K |
Likely R |
450K |
| Missouri |
519K |
Tossup |
519K |
| West Virginia |
200K |
Likely D |
600K |
| Indiana |
345K |
Lean R |
690K |
| Massachusetts |
762K |
Tossup |
762K |
| Michigan |
581K |
Lean D |
1,162K |
| Arizona |
676K |
Lean R |
1,352K |
| Virginia |
1,473K |
Tossup |
1,473K |
| Ohio |
778K |
Lean D |
1,556K |
| Washington |
577K |
Likely D |
1,731K |
| Connecticut |
3,050K |
Tossup |
3,050K |
| Pennsylvania |
1,082K |
Likely D |
3,246K |
| Florida |
2,516K |
Lean D |
5,032K |
| New Jersey |
3,470K |
Likely D |
10,410K |
Now let's take a brief look at the nation's competitive gubernatorial races and their efficiencies. It's a short list, since there aren't a lot of races, period. Montana is by far the best buy, given its small population and little spill-over of its markets across state lines; in addition, it's one of only three races that we have currently rated Tossup, along with the less-efficient New Hampshire and Washington. (New Hampshire, despite its population, is hampered by the fact that it's dominated by the Boston media market, which has a lot of people, most of whom aren't even in New Hampshire.) I'm not factoring up "Lean" and "Likely" races here, since there are so few of them.
| State |
Markets |
Cost |
| Montana |
Missoula, Billings, Great Falls,
Butte, Helena, Glendive |
154K |
| West Virginia |
Charleston, Bluefield, Clarksburg,
Wheeling, Petersburg |
200K |
| Indiana |
Indianapolis, Ft. Wayne, So. Bend,
Evansville, Terre Haute, Lafayette |
345K |
| Missouri |
St. Louis, Kansas City, Springfield,
Columbia, Paducah, Joplin,
St. Joseph, Ottumwa |
519K |
| Washington |
Seattle, Spokane, Yakima |
577K |
| New Hampshire |
Boston |
583K |
| North Carolina |
Charlotte, Raleigh, Greensboro,
Greenville NC, Greenville SC, Wilmington |
598K |
Finally, let's turn to the nation's House races. There are some huge disparities here, as some markets -- mostly rural ones -- neatly overlap their constituency. On the one hand, for instance, take Rhode Island's 1st district, at the top of the list; here you only need to pay for advertising in the Providence market, a small market and where there's little bleed across the state lines. On the other hand, consider California's 41st district, where you pay to advertise to everybody in the Los Angeles market, where you're also reaching people who live in several dozen other House districts.
Rather than doing the multiplier thing with differently-rated House races, I'm doing a separate chart for Tossup and "Lean" districts; the Tossup districts are the most important ones for deciding House control, though the Lean districts by no means should be neglected, and they present a lot of really efficient options. Let's start with the Tossups.
| State |
Markets |
Cost |
| RI-01 |
Providence |
116K |
| FL-18 |
W. Palm Beach |
126K |
| IA-03 |
Omaha, Des Moines |
129K |
| IL-17 |
Davenport, Rockford, Peoria |
150K |
| UT-04 |
Salt Lake City |
185K |
| NY-21 |
Albany, Watertown, Burlington |
198K |
| CT-05 |
Hartford |
198K |
| NC-08 |
Charlotte |
216K |
| NV-04 |
Las Vegas |
219K |
| PA-12 |
Pittsburgh, Johnstown |
219K |
| IL-12 |
St. Louis, Paducah |
233K |
| NC-07 |
Wilmington, Myrtle Beach, Raleigh |
243K |
| OH-16 |
Cleveland |
245K |
| CA-52 |
San Diego |
285K |
| MN-08 |
Minneapolis, Duluth |
307K |
| CA-07 |
Sacramento |
354K |
| AZ-01 |
Phoenix |
544K |
| AZ-09 |
Phoenix |
544K |
| MA-06 |
Boston |
583K |
| NH-01 |
Boston |
583K |
| NH-02 |
Boston |
583K |
| IL-10 |
Chicago |
988K |
| IL-11 |
Chicago |
988K |
| FL-26 |
Miami |
1,115K |
| CA-26 |
Los Angeles |
2,702K |
| CA-41 |
Los Angeles |
2,702K |
As you can see, the least efficient districts are the ones in the L.A. and Chicago markets; in addition, we run into the same New Hampshire problem as before, having to play in the Boston market. (It's worth noting that one of the affiliates within the Boston market is actually a Manchester station; New Hampshire candidates may emphasize that station much more so than the other Boston-based stations. And, of course, House candidates tend to rely more on cable and less on broadcast, which doesn't have the same reach but allows much more effective targeting.)
The smaller-market districts (like Iowa's 3rd, Illinois' downstate 17th, and upstate New York's 21st), on the other hand, are the most "efficient." Somewhat surprisingly, Florida's 18th (the site of the high-dollar battle between Allen West and Patrick Murphy) is also one of the cheapest, according to this analysis. All of the district, which runs between West Palm Beach and Fort Pierce at the north ends of the Miami metropolitan area, is within the West Palm Beach media market, rather than the much more expensive Miami one. The West Palm Beach market, though, is very populous (more than a million residents), so my suspicion is that it's cheap because the West Palm Beach-based affiliates are lightly watched, with many of its residents watching the Miami affiliates instead, which they probably also receive. (Ratings, and desirable demographics, play a role in determining costs from market to market, not just population numbers.) At any rate, it seems like candidates there would want to advertise in the expensive Miami market as well, if they wanted to be thorough (and given how much money West and Murphy have to work with, they can easily afford to do so), though that would also make their races much less "efficient" by our standards.
Now let's turn to the House districts that Daily Kos Elections has rated "Lean Democratic or "Lean Republican..."
| State |
Markets |
Cost |
| IN-02 |
South Bend |
42K |
| CA-24 |
Santa Barbara |
51K |
| NY-24 |
Syracuse |
56K |
| KY-06 |
Lexington |
58K |
| NY-25 |
Rochester |
72K |
| IN-08 |
Evansville, Terre Haute |
72K |
| AZ-02 |
Tucson |
79K |
| MI-01 |
Marquette, Traverse City, Alpena |
81K |
| IA-04 |
Sioux City, Des Moines, Rochester |
106K |
| NM-01 |
Albuquerque |
115K |
| GA-12 |
Augusta, Macon, Savannah |
153K |
| NY-27 |
Buffalo, Rochester |
159K |
| NV-03 |
Las Vegas |
219K |
| IL-13 |
St. Louis, Champaign |
242K |
| OH-06 |
Wheeling, Charleston, Columbus, Parkersburg, Zanesville |
301K |
| MI-11 |
Detroit |
315K |
| TX-23 |
El Paso, Odessa, San Angelo, San Antonio |
340K |
| CA-07 |
Sacramento |
354K |
| CA-10 |
Sacramento |
354K |
| WI-07 |
Duluth, Minneapolis, Wausau, La Crosse |
360K |
| CO-06 |
Denver |
469K |
| CO-07 |
Denver |
469K |
| WA-01 |
Seattle |
482K |
| FL-16 |
Tampa |
536K |
| CO-03 |
Denver, Colorado Spgs., Grand Jct. |
551K |
| PA-08 |
Philadelphia |
618K |
| TX-14 |
Houston, Beaumont |
891K |
| MD-06 |
Washington |
1,131K |
| FL-22 |
Miami, W. Palm Beach |
1,241K |
| CA-47 |
Los Angeles |
2,407K |
| NY-01 |
New York |
2,852K |
| NY-11 |
New York |
2,852K |
| NY-18 |
New York |
2,852K |
| NY-19 |
New York, Binghamton, Albany |
2,852K |
| NJ-03 |
New York, Philadelphia |
3,470K |
There are some terribly inefficient districts here, most notably NJ-03, a district that's split between Philly's suburbs and the Jersey Shore. There, the broadcast TV costs are just the same as the entire New Jersey Senate race, seeing as how you'd need to advertise in both the New York and Philadelphia media markets. (This is one of those districts where the war is probably fought mostly on cable, through mailers, and other lower-dollar media.)
On the other hand, there are some great buys here too. Surprisingly, one of them is CA-24, where progressive Dem Lois Capps is running. Most of the district is in the Santa Barbara market, which isn't very populous and also seems especially cheap, given possibly that many people there opt to watch Los Angeles stations. Again, that points to the possibility that the candidates here might advertise a bit in L.A. despite the expense in order to be thorough, which would elevate it from being one of the best buys. Some of the others, though, work out well; IN-02 neatly overlaps South Bend's market, and KY-06 is a pretty precise match with Lexington's market.
Finally, there are the "Likely Democratic" and "Likely Republican" House races; it would be overkill to go through that whole list since they're unlikely to flip but rather are races that could move into play if circumstances change (either something momentum-changing within the race, or the development of a national wave). However, I did pull out a handful of races within those categories that seemed likeliest to be the most efficient; again, they tend to be rural seats without much spillover across state lines.
| State |
Markets |
Cost |
| ND-AL |
Fargo, Minot |
60K |
| SD-AL |
Sioux Falls, Rapid City |
72K |
| NE-02 |
Omaha |
75K |
| FL-02 |
Panama City, Tallahassee |
84K |
| WV-03 |
Bluefield, Charleston |
96K |
| ME-02 |
Portland, Bangor, Presque Isle |
114K |
| OK-02 |
Tulsa, Ft. Smith, Sherman |
127K |
| MT-AL |
Missoula, Billings, Great Falls, Butte, Helena, Glendive |
154K |
