It might strike you as counterintuitive, but Democrats are prospering in the richest areas of the country, while Republicans are increasingly finding themselves beaten back into the Boonies. The Democratic strongholds of New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and California have a high percentage of wealthy people, along with a high cost of living. And Democrats are doing increasingly well in the suburbs (see the 2006 congressional races in the Philly metro area). Paul Krugman wonders whether the Democrats are being ‘wobbled by wealth’. Could this explain their failure to tax hedge fund managers at the normal income tax rate?
Maybe. But, for all my frustration with the current makeup of the Democratic Party, I am seeing the makings of an historic political realignment. Several factors could forestall or even derail this realignment, and I’ll be talking about those issues this fall and winter as we approach the presidential primaries. Let me lay out some of the signposts.
The first and most obvious sign of a realignment is seen in the nuts and bolts of the congressional campaigns. Breaking with all historical precedent, the Democrats are outraising the Republicans, and they are doing it at a mighty clip. The money advantage can be seen on the presidential level, where Democratic frontrunners Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have a combined $86 million cash on hand compared with $25 million for Romney and Guiliani. This advantage is also reflected in the parties’ congressional and senatorial election committees. The DCCC has $28 million cash on hand compared to the NRCC’s $1.5 million. And the NRCC has almost $4 million in debt. The Senate situation isn’t much better, but at least the NRSC have a little money to spend: $8,302,427. The DSCC, after debts, has $20 million. This is a staggering differential. The Republicans’ have raised the bulk of their money for the Republican National Committee (RNC), which is primarily concerned with national elections and party building, and not specific races. The RNC has a $16 million to $1.2 million advantage (after debts) over Howard Dean’s DNC. The advantage isn’t entirely from differential fundraising though, as Dean’s 50 State Strategy has a very high burn rate. Overall, the DNC, DCCC, and DSCC have more than twice as much cash on hand as their Republican counterparts. This cash advantage is important both for its strategic value (the ability, or inability, to infuse close races with last second cash) and for its symbolic meaning. People are betting on the Democratic Party and they are investing in it…heavily.
A money advantage is not the end-all of political success, however. Candidates like Rick Santorum, George Allen, and Conrad Burns lost their seats last fall despite vastly outspending their opponents. Candidate recruitment is key. And, here, the Democratic advantage is as stark as their money advantage. The Republicans have recruited no one thought remotely capable of unseating any Democratic Senator in next year’s election, (except for a Louisiana Democrat that flipped parties to challenge Mary Landrieu). The Democrats will be able to use all their money on offense. Their recruitment in the House has been slightly better, and they will have some strong candidates challenging some of the seats the Democrats picked up in ’06 (see Chris Carney in Pennsylvania’s 10 District, e.g.). Yet, with a plethora of retirements, especially in the blue-leaning Midwest, the Republicans will be defending many open seats, and with less than no cash on hand from the NRCC to assist them.
So, just based on the mechanics of money and recruitment, the signs all point to big Democratic gains.