Few people in Washington are busier these days than Brian Walsh, the political director of the National Republican Congressional Committee. The NRCC has had a wind in its sails for much of this election cycle, but now it faces an intense final four weeks of making sure that Republicans win the 39 seats they need to take back control of the House — and perhaps many, many more. NRO recently caught up with Walsh to get his perspective on this phase of the campaign.

NRO: How many seats would you consider “in play,” and how many would the GOP have to win for you to think, “We had a good night and did our job well”? Forty seats? Fifty seats?

Brian Walsh: Even with the ones we have to defend, you’re talking about probably somewhere in the 90s, or somewhere between the 80s and the 90s. I’m somewhat bullish, because I don’t think the full story has been told yet. Every single week in September, we saw new races come on the playing field where we had been watching but had been somewhat skeptical. Now we’re seeing survey data indicating they’re competitive.

What’s a good night? We win a majority back. NRCC chairman Pete Sessions has said from the beginning that our mission is to retire Nancy Pelosi as Speaker, and that’s exactly what we’re trying to do. There are a lot of predictions out there right now, some people saying 40, some people saying 50 or more, but we have to win 39. That is our first job; we have to get the gavel back from Nancy Pelosi. Then we can talk whether we have a three-seat majority, a ten-seat majority, or a 30-seat majority.

NRO: The value of achieving that goal is obvious, but in an environment such as this year’s, is there a danger of aiming too low or playing it too safe? Wouldn’t winning 40 feel like you left seats on the table?

Brian Walsh: That’s a resource-allocation question. It’s easy for people on the outside to sit back and say, “You’re not spending your money wisely,” or, “You should be getting into all of these other seats.” In the end, it comes down to dollars and sense.

We’re not going to leave a candidate who’s in a competitive race exposed so that he’s widely outspent by Democrats. But when it comes to finance, we have a twofold problem. On the one hand, we will be outspent by DCCC, and on the other, we’ve got a lot of competitive races where it’s the NRCC against both the DCCC and the incumbent.

NRO: Is it fair to say you would rather have 40 races where you feel really confident about your chances than 80 races where you feel pretty good but closer to 50/50?

Brian Walsh: Yes. When a lot of the outside folks were declaring that the House was won, if you talked to the folks in this building, we said, “Look, we feel pretty optimistic, but the battle has only just begun.” I don’t want to dampen expectations, but I do want everybody to be a little more pragmatic. Our challengers may be leading in more than 25 or 30 races, but that doesn’t mean their chances of winning are over 50 percent. That doesn’t mean that the leads are 10 or 15 points. Are there some like that? Sure. We’ve got some today that I think are in the bank, but you still have to look at these individual campaigns from a mechanical standpoint.

You may have a candidate who is only down four points, but then you see the district has three media markets and it costs $1.8 million to go into all three for two weeks. Do I walk away from some of those other races to fund that one for that $1.8 million?

If I have a candidate up ten points today, but he only has $100,000 in the bank and he’s going up against an incumbent with $1.6 million, should we walk away from that race? Therein lies the big problem; we have to fight not only the DCCC but often the incumbent Democrat as well. When you add up the opponent and the DCCC, these candidates are often getting outspent three or four to one.

We’re not going to let those opportunities slip. We’re going to win what we can win. What you’ve seen is that, as our fundraising has improved, we’ve been able to expand the battlefield farther and farther and farther with our independent-expenditure ads. But there are very few races in this country where we’re not getting outspent.

We started out looking at races in affordable media markets where we could get involved in a meaningful way. We pulled the trigger on those races. At this point, part of the challenge is that we’re beyond those cheaper seats and are looking at moderately expensive or very expensive districts. And then it’s just a question of resources.

NRO: We’re a month from Election Day. What factors are now baked in the cake, and what’s still in play?

Brian Walsh: A lot could change at the congressional level over a two- or three-week period, and so four weeks out, we still have to watch the national political environment pretty carefully. I think at this point, you’ve had consecutive months showing that Republican intensity has continued to hold; we haven’t seen any deterioration there. But I think there are a lot of factors still in play. We continue to run well among independents, we continue to run well among senior citizens. But you’re going to see the advertising targeting these groups on both sides of the aisle in a number of these races, so these numbers are going to move. I think the most important thing is to never sit back and think this election is over. We’re in the fourth quarter of the game and we’ve got a lead on the board, but we need to defend it.

NRO: Does the NRCC have what it needs in this cycle financially?

Brian Walsh: I think we’re in a pretty good financial position, when you look at the number of months we have outraised the DCCC, allowing us to close the gap with them. I think you’re seeing a lot of third-party groups invest in a lot of races around the country, which has been exceptionally helpful. Right now we feel pretty confident that we’ve got what we need in most of the races that we’re in today, but the battlefield continues to expand. I think that’s really the question. We’re at the point now where there are going to be some races where we think we may have a path to victory, but we don’t have the funds to quite get there.

We have reserved time for independent-expenditure ads in more than 50 races. We’ve tried to help fund through other means — coordinated money, direct contributions, that sort of thing — in more than 70 races. But our big stick, obviously, is the independent-expenditure advertising, and that’s the sort of thing where we would like to get into more races.

NRO: Do you look at any races and say, “Dang, if only Candidate X had more money, this seat would be winnable?” And if so, do any names come to mind?

Brian Walsh: First of all, we can’t simply take our foot off the gas on the candidates we have out there today. You look at a guy like Paul Gosar, out in Arizona 1 — the DCCC is involved in that race, incumbent Democrat Ann Kirkpatrick is involved in that race, and Paul came out of a late primary, so we have to continue to focus on helping him raise some money.

You probably have a fairly long list of people like that, because one thing Democrats did a fairly good job of was lining their incumbents’ pockets, to a significant advantage over our candidates. You talk about Mike Keown down in Georgia 2, you talk about Bill Johnson in Ohio 6, John Koster up in Washington 2 . . . there are more than handful of seats like that, where we look at emerging opportunities and think, “Man, if this guy just had a bit more money, he would be in this race in a real way.” And what you’ve got to look at are those races where neither the NRCC’s independent expenditures nor the DCCC’s independent expenditures are currently invested, and yet we recognize there’s an opportunity for that candidate, and it may just be a matter of getting that candidate the funds he needs without there being much outside help.

Another example is Dan Kapanke out in Ron Kind’s district — he’s at least getting some independent expenditure from an outside group — but Dan could always use more resources in a pretty big media market.

NRO: Someone characterized the Midwest as “the killing fields” for Democrats. Are you seeing that?

Brian Walsh: We saw this environment start to build in the South and then push its way into to the Midwest, and slowly but surely expand out into the Southwest, the Northwest, and the Northeast. So that is what you saw as summer came to an end, around Labor Day. In fact, around then there was a Democratic pollster quoted as saying, “Things are getting worse.” Now there’s a lot of discussion about the idea that “Democrats are coming home.” And they have seen a little bit of a bump, but it’s not a sizeable bump.

You look at what’s going on in Arizona right now, where the administration is suing the state over the immigration law — there is a big national issue that is playing out at the state level. You look at Florida — things are looking good for us there. If you look at southeastern districts that didn’t vote for Obama in the first place, you’re seeing the national political environment having a stronger impact there than in districts that did support the president. You can draw from Florida all the way up to the Dakotas where you’re seeing that movement.

NRO: Where are you involved that you didn’t expect to be a year ago?

Brian Walsh: I’d say take a look at North Carolina 7, incumbent Democrat Mike McIntrye vs. Ilario Pantano. That’s a race a lot of folks wouldn’t have considered a real Republican opportunity, but we think Ilario is running a great campaign. Probably Bobby Schilling vs. Phil Hare, the incumbent Democrat, is the one that’s most talked about now, where you have seen the DCCC turn around and have to invest in that race. Bobby Schilling has done a hell of a good job putting that race into play. I think Democrats realize they have a serious problem on their hands.

NRO: The Democrats’ strategy clearly relies heavily on opposition research and “October surprise” scandals — Tom Ganley in Ohio comes to mind. Does that work in a year like this, with big issues like the economy, joblessness, debt, spending, health care? In reverse, do the GOP candidates get traction when they call attention to Democrats’ scandals, or does it pack less punch when voters are already focused on their own quality of life, income, job security, etc.?

Brian Walsh: I don’t know that you can answer that question today; we probably won’t be able to answer it until Election Day. That’s the great debate right now. Our argument is that the national political environment for Democrats is so toxic that 1994- or 2006-style dynamics are in play.

When you look at national polling data showing that jobs and the economy are the predominant issues in the minds of almost every voter from sea to shining sea, our ability to the nationalize the election is going to be what’s most important.

I would remind people that in 2006 it was then–DCCC chairman and now–Chicago mayoral candidate Rahm Emanuel who said every election that is nationalized is a referendum on the majority party. Now that’s our strategy. Their strategy is that by vilifying individual Republican candidates, they are going to localize the elections, which is similar to what we were saying in 2006.

I think in some ways this phenomenon will be determined on a district-by-district basis. The national issues are an undercurrent in every single district in the country, but there are some parts of the country where national issues are going to be even stronger — a much stronger message than any opposition research against an individual candidate.

Broadly speaking, this is the best political environment in years, but campaigns matter. If somebody doesn’t handle a piece of opposition research well, it may end up consuming his campaign and turning the focus from national issues to local ones. But if you look at what our candidates are doing, many are just briefly rebutting and pivoting back to the issues that matter most to voters. They’re responding to the attack and then saying, “But you know what? That’s not what this is about. This is about jobs, the economy, the fact that government has grown too big and is spending too much money, and it’s time to put our country on the right track.”

September was always going to be the most difficult month, because this was when the Democrats’ cash advantage could really play out. They had a natural advantage, but now we’re getting into October, when the party committees, the individual candidates, everybody’s going to be engaged. The real test of muster is going to be whether a voter says, “I’m not happy with what I just learned about this challenger, but the reality is I’m even less happy with my incumbent, who voted for the stimulus, cap-and-trade, and the health-care bill.”

NRO: Have you guys put any thought into what the environment will look like after redistricting? Will Republicans who win this year be in safer seats next cycle because of redrawn district lines?

Brian Walsh: Broadly speaking, our friends at the Republican Governors Association are doing an incredible job with gubernatorial candidates all over this country. The national political environment helps with candidates at the state level as well. The national political environment should put us in the strongest possible position when redistricting comes up next year, simply because we have the opportunity to get control or expand control of some state legislatures and elect Republican governors.

NRO: One of the more surprising recent comments came from NBC’s Chuck Todd, when he said the White House is “completely unprepared” and “do[es] not understand what is coming” in November. If there’s one thing I trust MSNBC to do, it’s to accurately tell us about the mood at the White House, since the two are increasingly indistinguishable. You’re strategizing against these guys, watching their moves. Does the DCCC know what’s coming? Does the White House?

BRIAN WALSH: I don’t know what they’re thinking, but my impression is that over course of the last two weeks they have been beginning to wake up and realize how bad it’s going to be. The DCCC is advertising in Sanford Bishop’s district, they’re advertising in Phil Hare’s district. They’ve put $1 million in Rick Larsen’s district up in Washington — these are seats we weren’t talking about year ago.

Whether or not the White House comprehends what’s coming, I don’t entirely know. There was a lesson with Biden running around talking about “Recovery Summer” and then watching the unemployment numbers come back at the end of the month. This White House has never been very focused on the Democratic message or what the DCCC is telling them they need to be talking about, so I guess I have some skepticism about where their priorities lie. If Chuck Todd says he thinks the White House doesn’t know what’s coming in November, maybe he’s right.

NRO: How will you be spending the day after Election Day?

Brian Walsh: My assumption is that I’ll be wide awake for three days after Election Day, dealing with recounts. Even in the 2008 cycle, we had eight or nine recounts. We expect a lot of close races, and we will probably have some unexpected victories in districts none of us were talking about, where 1,000 votes will make the difference. Election Night will be a good time, but we’ll be dealing with a lot of recounts through the month of November. Then, when it’s all said and done, I’ll be off the coast of Costa Rica, trying to catch some very large fish.

– Jim Geraghty writes the Campaign Spot for National Review Online.