Having lived in Michigan my entire life, I know the danger of ever suggesting to anyone that Michigan is anything like Ohio. It’s just not done. That said, I feel that the results from Tuesday and the overall course of the campaign leading up to those results offer us a glimpse of what might, perhaps, happen in the Michigan 7th come November 2008.

The Ohio 5th shares certain characteristics with the Michigan 7th. It’s a geographically large district, stretching across northwest Ohio, while being careful to exclude major Democratic-leaning population centers. Like the Michigan 7th, it’s gerrymandered to be an easy Republican win. It’s PVI is R+10, while the Michigan 7th’s is R+2.5, so it is more Republican than the 7th District, meaning that it should be easier for a Republican to get elected there than here. President Bush carried the mostly rural district with 61 percent of the vote, and in 2006, Congressman Gillmor was re-elected with 57 percent over under-funded Democratic challenger Robin Weirauch.

In the special election, Weirauch was the Democratic nominee once again, with no real opposition in the primary. Her opponent was state Representative Bob Latta, who had to overcome a fierce primary over a Club for Growth-sponsored Steve Buehrer. Sound familiar? Still, Latta is no Joe Schwarz, being more conservative and a much worse campaigner. After some grassroots energy and some encouraging polling, it looked like Weirauch might have a chance at winning, capitalizing on bitter Republican voters withholding their support from Latta.

I’ll spoil the ending for you, in case you didn’t already know it. Latta won, Weirauch lost, and the margin was roughly the same as the 2006 election (Latta 57 percent, Weirauch 43 percent). There were several Michigan bloggers doing work for the Weirauch campaign—most notably lpackard at Michigan Liberal—and if you’re interested, read what she wrote about her experience during the final days before the election (here, here, here, here, and here). It’s definitely worth checking out.

But the Democrat lost. Bummer, eh? Is it a sign, perhaps, that running against Walberg is a hopeless cause, because he’s got the advantages of incumbency and a gerrymandered district? Well, not so fast. In addition to the $508,000 that now-Congressman Latta spent, the National Republican Congressional Committee spent $537,038.24 in order to pay for a status quo victory.

So why is the amount that the NRCC spent so significant? Well, simply put, that was 21 percent of their total cash available, $2,513,816. The DCCC, in contrast, has $29,212,545 available to spend, and used less than one percent of their cash available (about $244,000) on this election.

In the past eight years, there have been 25 special House elections. Of those 25, only three resulted in a change of party. Special elections generally reflect the composition of the district, with a lower turnout and less attention paid to the national issues that could lead to a “wave” election as in 2006. While immune from the “wave” forces, however, they do potentially predict such waves in the election cycle which will follow. When Paul Hackett nearly won in the Ohio 2nd in 2005, it was a sign that even the most Republican seat could be in play.

Bob Latta didn’t almost lose the way that Jean Schmidt did in 2005. However, he did show us the price tag that comes with just an ordinary win. Unfortunately for the GOP, there just isn’t enough money to spend that much on every competitive district. When the NRCC is looking at which Republican-held districts are vulnerable, they’ll see the Michigan 7th. They’ll look at Tim Walberg’s lack-luster fundraising, they’ll look at Mark Schauer’s campaign, and they’ll look at Walberg’s performance thus far.

Does anyone think the NRCC would be willing to spend $500,000 to save a freshman in a blue state when there are so many open seats and senior members with strong Democratic challengers? Is it possible that the NRCC might do the math and count Tim Walberg as a loss?

I’m not saying Walberg won’t get any support from his party, but when their resources are so limited, is it worth it to put up a big fight to save one of the least important members of the caucus? With no sign of improvement in the NRCC’s finances, there’s a very real chance that Walberg could find himself on his own. Will the Club for Growth bail him out again?

Meanwhile, the DCCC is still targeting the Michigan 7th, and Mark Schauer had no trouble at all raising money in the third quarter. Walberg still has a big advantage as the incumbent in a gerrymandered district. But his advantages are slowly dwindling.

Labels: 2008 Speculation, Ohio 5th Special Election, Tim Walberg

posted by Fitzy  # 9:31 PM