Run Everywhere

I gave a little cash to John Courage today. Courage is a Texas Democrat running in House District 21. I first heard of him when he was in the audience at a talk given by Project 90 at this summer's DemocracyFest. Walter Ludwig, the Executive Director of Project 90, started the organization to support Democrats running in solidly Republican House districts.

I left Ludwig's talk completely persuaded that we need to run folks in those districts. It forces Republicans to spend in districts where they don't think they need to, and it keeps them from funneling as much money to their fellow R's in districts with strong D opposition. Republicans with no challengers raised $63 million between 2000 and 2004, and they gave a lot of it away to their friends. It's also a party-building endeavor, bringing the idea of the Democratic Party alive in areas where fewer and fewer people even know anyone who identifies as a Democrat. Plus, Project 90 used the races they ran in 2004 as a laboratory for new techniques and to train new campaign staff.

Heck, I didn't see how anyone but the DCCC could oppose the idea. ;) However, I'm easily taken in by well-spoken, charismatic individuals like Ludwig - and there was no one at the seminar to give a counterargument. So I tried to think critically about it when there was an outbreak of conversation on the topic by some of my favorite bloggers late this summer:

• Charles Kuffner supported the strategy, believing that it's essentially an investment of resources that helps develop the party's volunteer, donor, and voting base.
• Dave Johnson at Seeing the Forest saw it as the DCCC not understanding that we have to win people back, not just get our base to turn out. That means more work on the ground, everywhere at once.
• Kevin at LeanLeft said he understood that the DCCC and DSCC need to focus on regaining a majority, yet felt that the Dems need a long-term strategy, and running in all 50 states is it.
• Ezra Klein thought we should be spending more money in more places, but not throwing away money "on principle" by running everywhere.

I felt somewhat shaky about evaluating any of these claims, since they all seem to be theories. I prefer actual information, especially since I don't have any campaign experience against which I could evaluate the theories.

Then Charles Kuffner pointed to some research that he found via Ruy Teixeira:

....[I]t is hard to peg the exact point at which the returns from campaign spending become so negligible as to be worthless. Still, it is safe to say for the vast majority of candidates that the impact of expenditures beyond $1 million is heavily attenuated. What that means is simple: spending past $1 million gains far fewer votes (and maybe none at all) than does earlier spending. Targeted races are inevitably among the most expensive in country with both sides going all out to help their candidate across the finish line. Diminishing marginal returns mean that the effect of their help is severely limited.

I didn't rigorously evaluate the study Teixeira mentioned, but it gave me a little something to go on. I should probably look into it a little more so I can reassure myself that my money goes where it matters. But for now, when John Courage came back across my radar screen (by winning the Democracy for America Grassroots All-Star endorsement), I donated to his campaign. I'll let the big races take care of themselves for right now. Hopefully my few bucks can have a big bang in Courage's district.

I also checked for a Project 90 website, since Ludwig had said they had one in the works. None yet. I'll keep checking.