The Democrats face an excruciating choice over the next 2 and 1/2 weeks.  From the Washington Post's indispenable Chris Cilizza:

Democrats said private polls have convinced top party officials that they could pick up 40 or more seats — nearly double their internal projections from a week ago — if they spend enough money on television advertising for long-shot races.  Strategists James Carville and Stan Greenberg are among those pleading with party leaders to go deep into debt to run ads in as many as 50 GOP-held districts.

Still, several Democrats complained that the party is on the verge of blowing a once-in-a-decade political opportunity because of financial troubles.

Some Democratic officials and donors want their money concentrated to maximize the chances that the party captures the minimum number of seats necessary to gain majorities in the House and the Senate, rather than having resources spread too thin by spending on second-tier targets.  The party needs to pick up 15 seats to win control of the House and six to take power in the Senate.

But Carville, Greenberg, Emanuel and others are now arguing in private deliberations that Democrats have a historic chance to not only win the House but also capture enough seats to build an effective governing majority.  They are telling donors that it is worth the risk to shoot for a 40-plus seat gain, which would give Democrats a large enough majority to guarantee that they could move legislation and carry out investigations of the Bush administration.

The DCCC is likely to go deep into debt, perhaps topping the $11 million deficit it racked up in 2004.  The committee can borrow as much as a bank is willing to lend.  The other option is to take money out of Republican districts that the party is confident it is almost certain to win.

This approach carries a big risk, however.  If the party pulls ads in districts such as the Indiana base of Rep. Chris Choccola, who is trailing by double digits in private Democratic polling, it might allow an established GOP incumbent to creep back up in the race.


I think it would be a huge mistake for the Democrats to assume they are in a good enough position to pull money out of any of the Republican-held seats they are challenging.  I also think it is probably the smarter strategy to focus resources on the seats currently in play, aiming for a small majority win, rather than Emanuel and Greenberg's "realignment" push for 40+ seats.  Just because it sounds good doesn't mean it will happen.

It is going to take a sustained ad airwar in each district to even begin to match the Republican's financial advantage.  Going into debt is a good idea.  But the Dems are already doing that.  The bottom line is that there is a limited amount of districts that can ever be flipped from one party to the other, no matter how strong or weak a candidate is, and no matter how much money is spent.  I have a hard time believing that the Dems can go from a 15-seat to a 40-seat pickup just by borrowing another $10 million from the bank.