We welcome all comments. Substantive contrary or supportive views, complete with statistical corroboration and or direct links to relevant research on this topic, will be considered for featured posting.
On October 8th we posted an article decrying inadequate candidate recruitment efforts that left roughly one half of Davenport without a Republican state legislative candidate on the 2014 ballot, House or Senate. No Suppressive Fire To Help Rest of Troops . Democrats Seng (Senate District 45) Lykam (House District 89) and Winckler (House District 90) all had free rides. Checking back just to 1980 (34 years 17 election cycles) that sector of the city had Republican state legislative candidates on the ballot to encompass its entirety either for the State Senate or the State House in combination. Not so for the first time in 2014. County leadership should be primarily responsible for candidate recruitment.
We were also distressed that any other State Senate election anywhere in Iowa did not have a Republican on the ballot given that Republicans were supposedly intent on taking over the State Senate. The Democrats hold it by only two seats, and in a mid-term election when Republicans have a traditional turn-out advantage, to at least keep non-targeted Democrat incumbents at bay, a full court press would seem essential. Statewide there were six State Senate races out of twenty-five such plebiscites that did not have a Republican candidate. It does not matter that Democrats did not field candidates in as many when our party is trying to takeover the Senate, had predictable cyclical advantages and other Democrat weakness to exploit.
Because Republicans failed to take the Senate last month, arguably Republican Governor Branstad who won handily, predictably, and with excess of cash, has a Democrat co-Governor — still Senate Majority Leader Michael Gronstal.
We can stipulate that it is unlikely that a Republican would have won in any of those particular six Senate districts and still make our point that fielding a candidate in most of them, or in most of the House districts left unopposed, would have helped constrain overall Democrat resources and thereby helped those seats that were targeted in any takeover effort (if Republicans actually had a viable one).
In an associated way, such candidacies as part of a responsible strategic initiative would have provided yeoman service to help further Republican results down-ticket and up-ticket within their districts (and enhance future prospects for Republicans) even with relatively little effort and money.
We do not believe there is a credible concern that running a Republican candidate in a so-called Democrat district somehow wakes up a sleeping giant or pulls the tigers tail. Rather, even a minimal effort rousts the typical political animal to self-centered mode and the courtesans of that kingdom to pay extra tribute however inefficient and encumbered — factors to Republican advantage.
If there were benefit to the otherwise unopposed candidate or party by having a token opponent for the general election they would generate one for purposes of raising money in response to the exaggerated threat. We would never see an unopposed candidate. As it was for 2014 in Iowa there were six State Senate seats without a Republican on the ballot (at a time when it is crucial to take the Senate) not to mention 28 State House seats without a Republican running. The figures were 6 and 21 respectively for the Democrats.
In quasi economic terms — the marginal utility from money spent is going to be far greater for the Republican running in the Democrat district than what will result in a Democrat enhancing his or her effort due to such a challenge. More comment on that will follow but first consider this chart centered around Democrat State Senator Joe Seng. The district encompasses West Davenport. Double click on the chart to expand it for ease of reading.
Seng has had four State Senate elections, all of them “mid-term” in relation to high turn-out presidential elections. Only two of them were opposed. When he was opposed his Republican opponents raised and spent very little but caused Seng to go to the usual suspects for money to “fight the threat” in the worrisome mid-terms in order to “insure” his return.
You can see from the table that Republican opponents to Seng, caused him to raise far more (pulling from or exploiting the Democrat system) than the money they raised. The ratios were on the order of 3 to 1 in terms of what Seng felt compelled to raise over and above his unopposed amount, compared to what the Republican raised. Another way of looking at it is that the Republicans caused Seng to roughly double the money raised per vote compared to his own unopposed amount raised per vote . The ratio to the Republicans was higher yet, roughly 7 to 1 and 5 to 1 , compared to unopposed elections.
Explanation of the focus of the table and other notes:
1 – We focus on money raised rather than spent in order to be as objective as possible. Having a candidate from the Republican Party on the ballot causes an otherwise unopposed Democrat to raise money which encumbers it even if it remains surplus. At the very least it is removed from circulation for a period of time by putting it into the Democrat candidate’s treasury. Typically (all candidates) are jealous of their funds and needs and release it dearly.
Depending on the budget of the giving person or entity, their resources are reduced possibly eliminating support for more tactically beneficial purposes in favor of the favorite son. Even if some of the money raised is later determined to be surplus by the candidate, they are forbidden in Iowa from transferring campaign funds directly to a committee of a different candidate (tickets for two to a fund-raising event excepted). They can participate in joint expenditures and give money to local and state political parties which is done extensively but again it is encumbered for reasons suggested.
2 – In the normally most lucrative Mid October financial report for 2006, not one dollar, of the over $16,000 reported in donations came from addresses inside the district. It should be noted that there were Republican State House candidates running within the Senate District in 2006, unlike the complete dearth in 2014
3 – The 2014 amount raised does not include the January 2015 report as yet
Recommendation
The Republican Party apparatus at various levels — state, district and county should combine heads to establish criteria, expectations and funds to insure that no Democrat held state senate seat goes unopposed for lack of recruitment and funds adequate for a candidate to serve tactical and long-term strategic purposes in difficult districts. As the table demonstrates for Davenport, the amount necessary to achieve outsize results in terms of impact on a so-called Democrat district that would otherwise be unopposed is probably less than $5000 even today. I had previously suggested $20, 000 which is not extravagant given what is at stake, would certainly put the fear of the lord in the Democrat incumbent probably aggravating self-preservation mode geometrically, but may not be necessary for substantial effect.
This should be thought of and designed as both a Democrat suppression and Republican party building outreach effort in those areas. Republicans are supposedly embarked on an outreach to certain “demographics” – well those “demographics” are largely situated in enclaves comprising those districts without Republican candidates. Candidates are vehicles to an outreach end, they also provide someone to vote for and test results — but we must have candidates on the ballot. It doesn’t do as much good to wail in those communities about the poor job or hurtfulness of Democrat policies on state matters and not have a candidate on the ballot for the state legislature.
Part II — to come — anticipating questions, objections and providing responses
Also to come — an analysis of the effectiveness of Republican “turn-out” efforts – what the results have been over the years.
https://webapp.iecdb.iowa.gov/PublicView/search.aspx?d=statewide
R Mall
