Share this comment
politico.com/live-updat…: (hat tip to Politicalwire; all that follows is quoted from the article)
House Majority PAC is adding $24 million to its initial $186 million in TV and digital reservations in April, according to plans shared first with POLITICO. Most of that new money will bolster the original buy.
But the group, which has close t…
https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2024/07/29/congress/house-majority-pac-24m-ad-buys-00171570: (hat tip to Politicalwire; all that follows is quoted from the article)
House Majority PAC is adding $24 million to its initial $186 million in TV and digital reservations in April, according to plans shared first with POLITICO. Most of that new money will bolster the original buy.
But the group, which has close ties to House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, has also identified three new offensive targets:
Iowa’s 1st District: HMP is reserving $350,000 worth of ads to boost Democrat Christina Bohannan in a southeast Iowa seat held by Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks.
Wisconsin’s 1st District: The super PAC is booking $725,000 in Milwaukee, where former Democratic Rep. Peter Barca is challenging Rep. Bryan Steil.
Wisconsin’s 3rd District: The group is placing nearly $4 million across three markets in western Wisconsin, where Democrats hope to unseat GOP Rep. Derrick Van Orden.
This article was written in July, so I’m not sure why it’s being posted now in September?
Oh, that's very weird. I didn't notice that. Politicalwire is a good resource but can be strange and slipshod at times.
There seems to be consensus that Democrats are well-positioned to flip the House. The margin matters – we don’t want people like Jared Golden de-fanging good, progressive legislation.
Any thoughts on the likely or achievable House margin?
The odds of having a Dem held senate are small, so the odds of getting "good, progressive legislation" are nearly zero. I'd gladly take Golden as the 218th seat, without hesitation. Of course I'd prefer more, but the reality is we won't be getting some sort of liberal bastion of new laws if Harris wins, because we almost certainly aren't winning the Senate, sadly.
"Almost certainly" is way too strong, in my opinion.
I'd say that to get to 50 senate seats, Dems would have to win at least one that they would seem likely to lose if the election were this week.
Yes. But it's 1 of 3.
Good chance that Sherrod Brown will pull through. I think Mucarsel-Powell will unseat the reprehensible Rick Scott of Florida, and Independent Dan Sanborn may surprise us in Nebraska. Also, Jon Tester’s re-election efforts may be an uphill struggle but not hopeless.
Nebraska is not believable to me. Compare Orman (I think that was his name) in Kansas.
While I can see the similarities in that comparison, since both are heavily rural, white and conservative states, there are some notable caveats to consider. Kansas has a ridiculously long history of electing Republicans - in fact from what I can see the last Democrat elected was George McGill back in 1939. Contrast that with Nebraska, which elected Bob Kerry in the 90s then Ben Nelson until he retired in 2013. Nebraska may not be a left leaning state, but if definitely has a history of electing left leaning or at least moderate Democrats to the senate. I would also add that there's a strong culture of voting for and supporting independent and nonpartisan politicians. Osborn especially fits that ideal, especially considering he spurned help from both parties. Is the race still an uphill climb? Probably sure, but I'd say Osborn is well within striking distance more than we may realize.
The Dakotas and Iowa also had pretty recent histories of voting for Democratic senators - not to mention West Virginia. So just how much relevance should we give that history to this year's elections?
To be clear, I'm not suggesting that voting histories are the only relevance or credibility we should give to taking these races seriously, let alone supporting them. I could just as easily also point out that the Kansas senate race was during 2014, a historically low turnout year for midterm elections. The bigger point, at least for me, isn't just how remotely winnable these races are, it's the fact that they are even this competitive to begin with. Truth be told, just having some evidence that helps show these races can be competitive just reinforces a stronger case for folks like me to consider donating and investing to such races. I have always been a big fan of the old 50 state and I am ecstatic to see Harris and Walz hire a rural director to that end. We should make a good faith effort to engage all voters, even those that we may not agree with. If we don't even try, then, why should they make an effort to listen to us? That's sadly what happens in many of these rural states and remote areas - voters including many of those who may often otherwise support our ideas get ignored, neglected and worse barely know who the candidate is outside their bubbles. If there's a even a chance to win over these voters, why not make an effort, especially when circumstances indicate you have a chance at a victory like here in Nebraska?
Agreed. But on Harris' Rural Director, aren't they concentrating on votes in swing states, not places like the non-Omaha-based districts in Nebraska?
I have Brown favored. But Tester seems to be dead man walking. That's 51R seats with a Sheehy win, unfortunately
Polls have underestimated Tester before, though
Most Dems were underestimated in the 2012 polls. That was a very interesting year and there hasn't been another like it since regarding Democratic overperformance, although to be fair, 2022 was the closest we've come.
A recent poll showed Tester up by five % points whereas others show Sheehy up several percentage points.
If Tester was up by just 1% points or even with Sheehy and he was leading Tester in multiple polls, then I'd be really concerned.
I have a very hard time imagining Brown winning. Remember that he underperformed polls in 2018 against a nearly invisible opponent. Since then, the Mahoning Valley has slipped so far out of reach that even the region's sitting Congressman managed to lose it in a race against freaking J.D. Vance. I struggle to see the Mahoning Valley snapping back even to 2018 numbers and have no idea how the math works for a Democrat to win Ohio without it. Delaware County wouldn't save Brown with a 50-50 Mahoning Valley. Add a win in Butler County into the mix just for giggles and I can't even see how that would do it.
Are you predicting a 52-48 Republican control of the Senate, then?
That would be my guess right now, with the caveat that it's too soon to get overconfident about the Blue Wall Senate races.
hello, is this Mark27 from DKE?
Yes indeed.
based on your negative comment about Sen. Brown I assumed as much
I suspected people would know it was me!
Tester and Brown are battle tested incumbents; and it's our best chance to retain the majority(it's not inconceivable that they win)
And yet Brown won re-election by a slightly higher margin in 2018 than in 2012. Explain that.
2018 was a D+8 year, 2012 was D+4.5
That once again solidifies my point of view the whole time:
Brown remains to have incumbency status and recognition in OH in ways other Democrats don’t have.
In addition to what Nikhil said, the GOP contested the Ohio Senate race closely in 2012 and conceded it in 2018. I suspect if Republicans knew an invisible man like Renacci could get within 6 points of Brown without even trying in 2018, they'd have put up a fight and made a contest out of it that year.
And still lost; honestly, Renacci or generic was the same; a loser to a superior political talent
Your point is made but with OH moving to the right since Trump, Republican base still voted in normal numbers as compared to 2012.
Also, Tim Ryan was the whole time behind JD Vance in the OH-SEN race polls back in 2022. By contrast, Sherrod Brown has been ahead in the polls the whole time.
Brown has a pretty clear path to winning. Ohio is no redder now than it was in 2018 (and might possibly even be bluer now thanks to the abortion issue). And being well known to be an asshole (as Moreno is) isn't any better electorally than being nearly invisible like Renacci in 2018. It will be close as always, but I think Brown wins re-election.
And if you're not sure how the political geography works out, look at the abortion referendum last year (which passed 57-43) and have the Dem do 6% worse in each county. That would be a 51-49 Dem victory.
Don't count out Tester; it ain't over til it's over
Dead man walking is an overstatement. I wouldn't say he's the favorite but the race is still closer to a tossup than either the media or polls seem to be making the race out to be. What's especially suspect is the almost all of the recent polls are Republican/conservative aligned or leaning pollsters so they heavily skew the narrative of that senate race in 1 particular direction. There's also the fact that Tester seems to have been accumulating more Republican endorsements lately and Sheehy has been perceived very poorly, even amongst conservative voters. I'd prolly say the race is a tossup that leans in Sheehy's favor, but nothing more or less beyond that.
Dead Man Walking is not accurate; difficult race for Tester, no doubt
I think Sanborn could surprise us in Nebraska by keeping it closer than it realistically should be, but I see no situation in which he actually wins.
Imo our chances are considerably better than 'almost certainly aren't'...
It won’t be much. 225 may be realistic. With some breaks, could get up to 230.
I want Jared Golden over the alternative
Absolutely! And Golden has many good qualities, although at times he can be exasperating.
Just to be clear, I want Democrats to win the House by a sufficiently large margin that Jared Golden – or a tiny group of very-conservative or opportunistic Democratic representatives – doesn’t become positioned to gain Manchin-like influence in the House.
Imo I'm not worried about the house(I think our side has won it); I'm almost solely focused on the Senate(roughly 5 seats involved)
This might be an overstatement but I generally agree here. I think we're likelier than not to win the House. I think the Senate is probably gone. I'd put Tester's odds at around 35 to 40% and Brown at 50/50.
I'd put them both at marginally higher but both winnable as well as possibly losing