This is what happens when national Democrats pretend a special U.S. House election isn’t happening: Republican Jason Smith wins 67 percent to 27 percent over Democrat Steve Hodges, 42,145 votes to 17,203 votes. Yes, it’s a conservative district, but this is a bigger margin than Romney’s win over Obama in 2012 in that district.

The strategists over at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee didn’t merely choose to not allocate any funds to help Hodges; they didn’t even mention the special election on their web site, Twitter account, or Facebook page.

This is a pretty amazing comment in an article by Dave Weigel over at Slate:

In her fateful CNN appearance, right before she evaluated Ann Romney’s economics cred, Hilary Rosen begged the media to “just get rid of this word, ‘war on women.’ After all, “the Obama campaign does not use it, President Obama does not use it — this is something that the Republicans are accusing people of using.”

On Thursday, as the Rosen saga unfolded, DNC communications director Brad Woodhouse echoed her plea for peace. “I’m not a fan of the term,” he said in an interview. “I mean, I’m sure I’ve probably used it. We all fall into these easy vernaculars . . . but we in the DNC have not been running a campaign based on the term ‘war on Women.’ That’s a myth cooked up by Republicans.”

Besides all the use of the term “war on women” by members of the House and Senate on the floor of their chambers . . . besides all the times DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz used the term . . . Well, if Woodhouse really objects to the term, maybe he should talk to his friends at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, who are selling “Stop the Republican War on Women” car magnets, coffee mugs, t-shirts, posters . . .

The National Republican Congressional Committee, whose mission is to preserve GOP control of the House, sends along word that they have enjoyed their best October fundraising in a non-election year ever, raising $4.56 million and leaving the committee with $13.8 million in cash on hand. Their year-to-date fundraising is 59 percent higher than it was in 2009 ($48.7 million vs. $30.6 million), and the NRCC’s net position is $11.1 million ahead of where the committee was at this time in 2009.

Of course, they’re in the majority; they should be well ahead of where they were in 2009!

For comparison, Roll Call reports that the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee raised $4.18 million in October and had $9.81 million in cash on hand on Oct. 31.

Everyone made a stir when the DCCC started tying themselves politically to the Occupy Wall Street protests, with good reason.

The National Republican Congressional Committee likes their odds of getting more support by standing on the other side.

It sounds like the DCCC move has consequences:

Banking executives personally called the offices of DCCC Chairman Steve Israel (D-N.Y.) and DCCC Finance Chairman Joe Crowley (D-N.Y.) last week demanding answers, three financial services lobbyists told POLITICO.

“They were livid,” said one Democratic lobbyist with banking clients.

The execs asked the lawmakers: “What are you doing? Do you even understand some of the things that they’ve called for?” said another lobbyist with financial services clients who is a former Democratic Senate aide.

Democrats’ friends on Wall Street have a message for them: you can’t have it both ways.

To their credit, the Occupy Wall Street crowd has clarified their demands: “I don’t want to work. I want to bang the drum all day. I don’t want to play. I just want to bang on the drum all day.”

Folks at the National Republican Congressional Committee are having a good laugh over this…

IN NOVEMBER 2010, THE DCCC SAID IT WAS TARGETING 61 DISTRICTS CARRIED BY OBAMA: “The DCCC has identified 61 seats currently held by Republicans in districts that Barack Obama won in 2008.  ‘Republicans won a lot of seats they have no business winning,’ said a top Democratic strategist. ‘It’s going to be a full-on recruitment cycle [and] Israel is the perfect person for that.’” (Brian Beutler, “Blue Dogged: Meet Steve Israel, The Incoming Chair Of The DCCC,” Talking Points Memo, 11/23/10)

EARLIER THIS MONTH, THEY SCALED THAT BACK TO 37 SUBURBAN DISTRICTS: “Representative Nancy Pelosi’s selection of Mr. Israel to lead the Congressional campaign had much to do with his district, a swath of Nassau and Suffolk Counties where Democrats hold a modest registration edge but independents decide elections.  The path to retaking the House, both say, leads through 37 similar suburban districts, home to nine million independents who voted for President Obama in 2008 but deserted the party in the 2010 elections.” (David M. Halbfinger, “L.I. Congressman Leads Uphill Charge Toward a Democratic House,” New York Times, 03/19/11)

NOW, THE DCCC HAS BEEN FORCED TO FOCUS ON ONLY 14 DISTRICTS: “The Democratic Party is taking aim at 14 freshmen Republicans in the House, of 87 elected, whom it deems the most vulnerable…the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which is focusing on districts where Mr. Obama and Senator John Kerry both won as presidential nominees and where Democrats have a registration advantage.” (Jennifer Steinhauer, “Hardly Settled in House, but Already in Hot Seat,” New York Times, 03/27/11)

ACTUALLY, THEY EVEN GOT THAT NUMBER WRONG.  IT’S 13 DISTRICTS WON BY KERRY, NOT 14: “All told, 63 Republicans in the 112th Congress will hold seats that President Obama carried in 2008 and, of that group, 13 will hold seats that Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) also won in the 2004 presidential race.” (Chris Cillizza, “The Obama Republicans,” The Washington Post’s “The Fix” blog, 11/11/10)

Of course, we have very little sense of the political environment of 2012, and how it will affect the 435 House races. The more recent and drastically reduced target lists of the DCCC might be selling themselves short. Certain members of the public might decide that they like budget cuts in the abstract but recoil when they’re actually enacted; the GOP presidential candidate may run particularly strong in some parts of the country and particularly weak in others. Then, of course, there’s redistricting, and we don’t know how many incumbents will retire. Each party still has a lot of recruiting to do.

But it’s pretty remarkable that we’re not hearing much talk about Democrats retaking the House in 2012.

The National Republican Congressional Committee feels pretty good about their latest monthly fundraising numbers, $4.9 million during February,

That’s $3 million more than last month, and their cash on hand is now $4.3 million; they’ve paid off $1 million in debt. Their debt remains at $9.5 million.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee had a better January, but has $18.6 million in debt headed into February.

Fascinating: The DCCC is still issuing press releases that cite their “When Are The Jobs” web site, even though the day-counting clock on the web site broke some time ago.

March 14: According to the running clock at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s website,http://www.whenarethejobs.com/, Republicans have done nothing to create jobs for 68 days, 17 hours, and 1 minute.

It appears the DCCC doesn’t read their own web sites. So why should you?

Much like the stimulus, the DCCC’s grammatically challenged “When Are the Jobs” web site is not working.

A beautiful “Doh!” moment, down in Tennessee:

Democratic officials have spent the past month savaging freshman Republican Rep. Stephen Fincher, claiming he betrayed constituents by campaigning against the new health- care reform law, then signing up for government health insurance at taxpayer expense.

State Democratic Party chairman Chip Forrester called him a liar. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee called him a hypocrite.

The only problem is, Fincher never signed up for government health insurance.

Instead, the Frog Jump farmer opted to keep his private insurance through the Tennessee Farm Bureau and signed a form in November waiving coverage under the Federal Employees Health Benefits program, according to a document provided by his office.

The story behind the erroneous allegation hyped by Democrats offers a window into the take-no-prisoners tactics used by both parties, and raises doubts that recent calls for greater civility in political discourse will yield results.

Look, judging by their “When Are The Jobs” web site, the DCCC isn’t really a detail-oriented organization . . .

The DCCC, facing a steep comeback trail in 2012, has made its first move, launching a web site entitled “When Are the Jobs?“

I know, that doesn’t really make sense and is barely a sentence. The DCCC doesn’t just oppose traditional values; they oppose traditional sentence structure.

The site points out how long the Republicans have had the speaker’s gavel (35 days today) and “0 job creation bills.” Because the DCCC appears to have spent minutes and minutes developing the site, it doesn’t say whether the missing “job creation bills” should be introduced, or passed, or signed into law.

A snarkier defender of House Republicans could point out that in the month Republicans took office, unemployment dropped four-tenths of one percent — but I won’t, since I think that number mostly reflects Americans dropping out of the workforce. But I would note that since Republicans won the election, they, the speaker-to-be and the president agreed to extend the Bush tax cuts (eliminating at least some of the uncertainty hanging over businesses) and giving workers a bit more take-home pay by reducing the payroll tax by two percentage points.

The Democrats are also mocking House Republicans for not living up to their promise to reduce government spending by $100 billion within one year.

Tell me again, how many billions in cuts have the House Democrats proposed?

A Washington Republican points out to me that one of the big narratives throughout the 2008 cycle was the National Republican Congressional Committee, tasked with chipping away at the Democrats’ 40-seat margin in the House, could not possibly compete or go on offense because of its then-dire financial position. Obviously, we know how that turned out.

He notes that the end-of-year reports show that the DCCC is in a financially worse position in January 2011 than the NRCC was in January of 2007.

In 2006, the DCCC had $9.3 million in debt and roughly $776,000 in cash on hand, while the NRCC had $14.4 million in debt and roughly $1.4 million on hand.

At the beginning of this year, the NRCC has $10.5 million in debt and $2.5 million in cash on hand. The DCCC has $805,000 cash on hand and an astounding $19 million in debt.

The NRCC is giddy this morning:

Dem campaign chief: Goal is making Pelosi Speaker again

House Democrats’ goal is to make Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) the Speaker of the House again, their campaign chairman said Wednesday evening. 

Rep. Steve Israel (N.Y.), the chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), set his goal as nothing short of winning back control of the House in the 2012 elections. ”We’re all trying to win it back,” Israel said on MSNBC when asked if it was Democrats’ goal of winning back enough seats to make Pelosi, the former Speaker and new minority leader, the next Speaker.

You’ll be seeing Nancy Pelosi, and this headline, in a lot of House race ads in 2012 . . .

I mentioned this in the Jolt, but it’s worth emphasizing again.

Ouch:

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee spent $54.8 million during the last fund-raising period (Oct. 14 through Nov. 22) and was left with $19.5 million in debt. The DCCC had just over $3 million in the bank, according to a committee spokesman. Its Republican counterpart, the National Republican Congressional Committee, had $4.7 cash on hand after spending $31.3 million during the five-week stretch. It will report debt of $12 million. For the calendar year 2010, the DCCC spent $120.2 million while the NRCC spent $93.7 million.

Dolly Parton used to joke, “It costs a lot to look this cheap.” Well, it cost Chris Van Hollen and the DCCC a lot of money to lose as many seats as they did.

Then again, maybe it prevented a really bad night from being an epically bad night: If every Republican House candidate had won 2 percent more, they would have won or effectively tied (less than 1 percent difference) in twelve more seats: David Harmer (CA-11), Andy Vidak (CA-20), Mike Keown (GA-2), Jackie Walorski (IN-2), Ben Lange (IA-1), Andy Barr (KY-6), Ed Martin (MO-3), Jon Barela (NM-1), George Phillips (NY-11), Tim Burns, (PA-12), Keith Fimian (VA-11) and John Koster (WA-2).

Earlier today I heard a DCCC radio ad slamming Virginia Republican House candidate Keith Fimian, denouncing him for opposing “a woman’s right to choose.” This may not seem strange, except it was on WMAL, during the Sean Hannity program. You know, after Rush Limbaugh and before Mark Levin.

Forget how many undecided or non-staunch Republicans in the 11th District were listening at that time… how many were staunchly pro-choice?

The DCCC seems to have resorted to the spaghetti method of campaigning: Throw everything against the wall and see what sticks.

I had to shrink it down a bit to get it to fit on the page, but I think you can see the disclosure information on this mailer that appears to tout little-known “Tea Party” candidate Roly Arrojo in Florida’s 25th congressional district: “Paid for by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. . . . Not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee.”

All right, Democrats. You want to play this way? We can play this way.

You thought American Crossroads and those groups were a pain this year? Wait until they do everything they can to promote Green Party candidates in key races in 2012. Let a thousand Ralph Naders bloom.

UPDATE: A couple of folks asked to see the other side of the mailer:

This DCCC ad makes the usual suggestion that a Republican who prefers a flat tax or fair tax — an idea that will never move beyond the drawing board during this presidency — supports a 23 percent sales tax on everything, implicitly suggesting it would be in addition to current income taxes, not replacing them.

But the DCCC must be really out of touch to use the line:

“Over 200 dollars a week, for groceries!”

Do the math. A 23 percent tax that amounts to $200 per week means the item being taxed is worth . . . $869.56. That’s almost $125 per day, or $45,341.61 per year.

Does your household spend $870 or so on groceries per week? Just how much do you eat? A lot of Wagyu steak, I take it?

Does anyone at the DCCC actually shop for groceries?

Another man exclaims, “Sixty bucks, just to fill up my truck!”

Apparently it costs him roughly $260 to fill up his truck now. What is he driving, an Abrams tank?

UPDATE: Some folks wonder if the DCCC means that the new cost is $200, not the cost of the tax itself. Except “in just one month, the average American family of four will spend almost $500 on groceries alone.” That comes out, most months, to about $125 per week. A 23 percent tax will raise a cost of $125 to $200? No, that doesn’t add up.

The only way this adds up is if the shopper in question spends $163 per week on groceries. Not an absolutely outlandish figure, but I doubt one that most Americans will relate to, particularly in times like this.

There is this beautiful little fairy tale that liberals tell themselves. A version of it appears in the novel Primary Colors, by Joe Klein, and I’ll offer a cleaned up version.

“The point is — EAGLETON,” Libby said. “You remember, Jack? I must have known you — what, two days, then? We hear about the electroshock, and it’s weird: That’s the first time I actually considered the possibility that we might lose to that [bad word] Nixon. Before that, I was absolutely convinced we would win. I mean, who would ever vote for Tricky? No one I knew, ‘cept the idiots I escaped from back in Partridge, Texas. Can you imagine, Henry? We were so [badwording] YOUNG. And this one, this one” — she nodded over toward Stanton — “he takes me out, we go to this little open-air Cuban joint, and I’ve got my head in my hands. Life has ended. And THEY did it — the CIA. It had to be the CIA. I couldn’t believe that Tom Eagleton would really be a nutcase. They had to have dragged him off and drugged him and made him crazy. It couldn’t have been that McGovern was just a COMPLETE [BADWORDING] AMATEUR. No, they did dirty tricks. And I said to Jack, ‘We gotta get the capability.’ You remember Jack? ‘We gotta be able to do that, too.’ And you said, ‘No. Our job is to END all that. Our job is to make it clean. Because if it’s clean, we win — because our ideas are better. You remember that, Jack?”

The fairy tale is that Americans, deep down, really agree with liberals on all of these issues and would heartily embrace their agenda if only these side issues, scandals, and manufactured distractions would just get out of the way.

This year, just about every Republican candidate is hell-bent on talking about big issues: jobs, the economy, taxes, spending, the horrific health-care legislation, securing our border, ending bailouts of powerful industries, and enacting fairly basic reforms for some minimal standards, such as having members of Congress read the farshtunkin bills they vote on. I suppose you might find a Republican or two running on scandals of the incumbent — but in the cases of Charlie Rangel, et. al, they’ve got good reason to do this!

Meanwhile . . . after telling themselves for decades that their ideas are better, and that if the election is about ideas, they win, what are liberals running on?

The DCCC is running ads about Kristi Noem’s speeding tickets, Keith Fimian’s home-inspection business, Jaime Herrera’s business-card expenses. Tennessee Democrat Lincoln Davis accuses his opponent of “a history of violent and threatening behavior.”

As we all know, Jack Conway is running an ad on the Aqua Buddha. The DSCC is running an ad saying that because Pat Toomey did work for a Chinese company, “maybe he ought to run for Senate . . . in China. (Gong noise.)” We all know how much of the DSCC attacks on Christine O’Donnell have been about her personal finances, and how much fun they had with Linda McMahon’s wacky on-camera performances as part of the WWF. And the White House, of course, is screaming from the rooftops that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce must prove their innocence over their unsupported charge of using foreign money.

Yet few if any endangered Democrats are running on health care and the stimulus, or to argue that the past two years represent serious improvement in the lives of Americans. They don’t want to talk about their ideas, or their record.

They should stop telling themselves the fairy tale that Americans, deep down, agree with the liberal agenda; Americans have had two years of the liberal agenda and are, by and large, vehemently rejecting it.

The Hotline’s Reid Wilson, September 13: “The DCCC is readjusting advertising buys in key districts across the nation, including in Arizona, where party strategists say incumbent Reps. Ann Kirkpatrick (D), Harry Mitchell (D) and Gabrielle Giffords (D) are running stronger than expected campaigns. Mitchell is going hard after ex-Maricopa Co. Treasurer David Schweikert (R), who had to spend most of his campaign cash on a tough primary race.”

The Hotline’s Reid Wilson, today: “The DCCC will also begin running ads defending Reps. Harry Mitchell (D-AZ), Sanford Bishop (D-GA), Frank Kratovil (D-MD) and Kathy Dahlkemper (D-PA). Both parties see Mitchell locked in a tough rematch with former Maricopa Co. Treas. David Schweikert (R).” 

I point this out not to mock Reid Wilson, who’s a fine reporter, but simply to illustrate the DCCC’s implausible claims of confidence. You might even say they come with an expiration date or something.

Patrick Ruffini wants a new update on the overall outlook for the House.

I had a list of 99 back in May. A few races have been added since then (Bob Etheridge had not grabbed anyone by the neck back then), and the outlook has shifted a bit. You can see my May categorization here. I’ve scrapped the NFL-team comparison and just gone with a simpler explanation, while retaining that reassuring and memorable Department of Homeland Security 
color-coded chart theme.

BLUE: GOP Should Win

Marion Berry’s open seat in Arkansas, Vic Snyder’s open seat in Arkansas, Dennis Moore’s open seat in Kansas, Charlie Melancon’s open seat in Louisiana, Paul Hodes’s open seat in New Hampshire, Eric Massa’s open seat in New York, John Tanner’s open seat in Tennessee, Bart Gordon’s open seat in Tennessee, Betsy Markey in Colorado, Frank Kratovil in Maryland, Carol Shea-Porter in New Hampshire, Earl Pomeroy in North Dakota, Paul Kanjorski in Pennsylvania. (13)

GREEN: GOP Has Good Chance of Winning

Brad Ellsworth’s open seat in Indiana, Joe Sestak’s open seat in Pennsylvania, Dave Obey’s open seat in Wisconsin, Bobby Bright in Alabama, Ann Kirkpatrick in Arizona, Allen Boyd in Florida, Alan Grayson in Florida, Suzanne Kosmas in Florida, Debbie Halvorson in Illinois, Phil Hare in Illinois, Baron Hill in Indiana, Joe Donnelly in Indiana, Travis Childers in Mississippi, Dina Titus in Nevada, Harry Teague in New Mexico, Bob Etheridge in North Carolina, John Boccieri in Ohio, Zach Space in Ohio, Betty Sutton in Ohio, Mary Jo Kilroy in Ohio, Steve Driehaus in Ohio, Kathy Dahlkemper in Pennsylvania, John Spratt in South Carolina, Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin in South Dakota, Glenn Nye in Virginia, Rick Boucher in Virginia, Tom Perriello in Virginia, Allan Mollohan in West Virginia. (28)

YELLOW: GOP Chances About 50-50

Bart Stupak’s open seat in Michigan, Brian Baird’s open seat in Washington, Gabby Giffords in Arizona, Harry Mitchell in Arizona, John Salazar in Colorado, Ron Klein in Florida, John Barrow in Georgia, Jim Marshall in Georgia, Walt Minnick in Idaho, Melissa Bean in Illinois, Bill Foster in Illinois, Leonard Boswell in Iowa, Ben Chandler in Kentucky, Mark Schauer in Michigan, Gary Peters in Michigan, Ike Skelton in Missouri, Shelley Berkeley in Nevada, John Adler in New Jersey, Martin Heinrich in New Mexico, Michael Arcuri in New York, Tim Bishop in New York, John Hall in New York, Bill Owens in New York, Mike McMahon in New York, Larry Kissell in North Carolina, Mike McIntyre in North Carolina, Heath Shuler in North Carolina, Charlie Wilson in Ohio, Jason Altmire in Pennsylvania, Chris Carney in Pennsylvania, Mark Critz in Pennsylvania, Patrick Murphy in Pennsylvania, Tim Holden in Pennsylvania, Lincoln Davis in Tennessee, Ciro Rodriguez in Texas, Steve Kagen in Wisconsin. (36)

ORANGE: GOP Should Win With Luck or Wave

Bill Delahunt’s open seat in Massachusetts, Mike Ross in Arkansas, Jim Costa in California, Loretta Sanchez in California, Jerry McNerney in California, Bob Filner in California, Ed Perlmutter in Colorado, Jim Himes in Connecticut, Chris Murphy in Connecticut, Sanford Bishop in Georgia, Bruce Braley in Iowa, Dave Loebsack in Iowa, Gene Taylor in Mississippi, Russ Carnahan in Missouri, Rush Holt in New Jersey, Dan Maffei in New York, Kurt Schrader in Oregon, Chet Edwards in Texas, Jim Matheson in Utah, Gerry Connolly in Virginia, Nick Rahall in West Virginia, Ron Kind in Wisconsin. (22)

RED: GOP Will Need a Wave and Some Luck

Patrick Kennedy’s open seat in Rhode Island, Stephen Lynch in Massachusetts, Betty McCollum in Minnesota, Frank Pallone in New Jersey, Dan Boren in Oklahoma, David Wu in Oregon. (6)

That adds up to 105 seats the Democrats have to defend. 

Not too long ago, I looked at the GOP’s vulnerable House seats:

I would have put Joseph Cao, that Republican representing that New Orleans district, on the extremely endangered list, but “Cao led state Rep. Cedric Richmond (D) by a 51%-26% margin, according to a survey conducted May 27-June 2 by LA pollster Verne Kennedy.” That poll doesn’t guarantee Cao survives, but it suggests the race is not the slam dunk the DCCC thinks it is. Obviously, Hawaii’s Charles Djou won’t have an easy campaign, but observers aren’t putting his seat in even the top ten seats most likely to switch. In Illinois’s 10th district, Republican Bob Dold and Democrat Dan Seals are even in fundraising and a poll back in March put Seals up by only 3. It’s a similar story in the open-seat race in Florida, which is an R+5 district, by the way.

Holding Delaware’s lone House seat will indeed be tough for the GOP . . .

Ordinarily, you figure the GOP would lose most or at least some of their really vulnerable seats . . . but there’s an awfully strong undertow for Democrats right now. Maybe it mitigates by November, but right now there aren’t too many signs of that.

Which Republican is the DCCC most afraid of? It might be David Harmer, who’s running for Congress in California’s 11th district. Harmer ran in a special election in the neighboring district last year, and garnered 42.8 percent in a district where Republican House candidates usually perform in the low 30s.

I wrote yesterday, “There aren’t a lot of competitive races in the San Francisco area; it appears the DCCC plans to spend $756,000 to defend incumbent Jerry McNerney from David Harmer; McNerney won 55 percent to 45 percent in 2008.” With turnout probably high among both party’s bases with California’s competitive gubernatorial and senatorial races, I would have put Harmer in the category of “promising candidate in tough terrain,” with odds of winning still below 50-50.

But Harmer wrote in to note that the district also includes a chunk of the Sacramento suburbs, and with few other competitive races in that area, it appears the DCCC is scheduling even more money for this race: $800,000 for the San Francisco market, and another $670,000 in the Sacramento television market. That adds up to $1.47 million, just to protect McNerney, who shouldn’t be in that much trouble.

The good news for Harmer? Another $4.53 million, and he’ll be right up there with Steve Austin.