Party committees — whether it be the Democratic National Committee or your local county or township committee — serve three basic functions in politics. First, they try to find good candidates to run for office — preferably candidates that the committee views as having a strong chance at winning in the general election. This function can become controversial when other folks also want to run and people start complaining about the party trying to rig the race or stack the deck. Second, the party committees raise money. Particularly at the national level, where big money is involved, this function sometimes looks unseemly as both parties typically offer access to party leaders to big dollar donors. Finally, the parties decide what to do with the money they raise. Some of this money go to basic party building activities, paying for voter databases and committee staff that help all of the candidates. But, at both the state and national level, there is money to go for staff for field offices in certain states and certain areas of states and to spend on party sponsored ads. Similarly, the campaign of the presidential campaign also has money for staff and ads. The question for the party committees and the presidential campaign is where to put the staff and where to buy the ads. That question turns on conclusions about where the most bang can be gotten for the buck — which states are the battleground states, those with a close battle where the extra resources could potentially swing the election.
For states that frequently find themselves on the margins of being a battleground state, this time of the cycle can be rather disruptive. The campaign process tends to begin with the party casting a broad net to have the resources in place for the final push in late October. However, those resources can disappear in an instant in September and early October when the party decides that the race is shifting one way or the other. For state and local candidates (and state activists), what is desired is for the national party to get in and stay in (or let us know that we are on our own from the beginning.) Having to alter plans at the last second when resources are pulled can kill a campaign.
There are three major national committees which have some input in this process — in addition to the presidential campaign. First, of course, is the Democratic National Committee. Second is the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. Finally, there is the Democratic Governor’s Association. There are other national committees, particularly the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Because these committees are either smaller (e.g. Democratic Attorney General’s Association) or have a focus beneath the state-wide level (e.g., the DCCC), they are less of a participant in the send money to state X and are more likely to concentrate their resources on advertising.
As the list of committees indicate, when it comes to sending staff, the focus tends to be on the presidential race, the U.S. Senate, and the twelve states that have governor’s races in 2016.
The presidential race is, probably, the biggest question mark at this point in time. Trump’s crash dive this month (shooting himself in the foot, non-existent advertising and field operations in key states) has the potential to change things. Clinton has already cut back on ad spending in Colorado and appears to be about to do the same in Virginia as both appear to be shifting from battleground states to significant Clinton leads. If the race stays its present course, we could be in a situation similar to 2008 when the issue becomes whether Clinton tries to run up the score (heading into states like Kansas and Utah) or focuses spending on helping the rest of the ticket.
For Senate, the key states are relatively clear (from most likely to go Democratic to least — Wisconsin, Illinois, Nevada, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Indiana, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Arizona, Missouri, Iowa, Alaska, and Louisiana). The Democrats need to win five of these fourteen to get to 50, a filibuster proof majority is almost impossible, although a 56 or 57 seat Democratic majority might shake some Republicans loose on some votes.
For governor, with only twelve races on the ballot, it is easy to pick five as worthy of priority — Indiana, Missouri, New Hampshire, North Carolina, and Washington. Since four of the five overlap with key Senate races, one would hope that the DNC will see those states as deserving large field operations from day one through to the end regardless of what states the Clinton campaign chooses to target. (North Carolina and New Hampshire should be on the Clinton target list in any case, and New Hampshire is relatively cheap to fully staff given its small population.)
Of the states that are on the Senate or Governors list, Indiana and Missouri are the two states that are most likely to have to argue to get the funding that they need (along with Alaska and Louisiana). These states are not likely to be at the top of the Clinton target list. Their hope, supported by current poll numbers, is that if Clinton seems to have wrapped up Colorado, Virginia, Michigan, and Wisconsin (and the Democrats are in good shape in the Illinois and Wisconsin Senate races), the focus can shift from those states to states that are further down on the target of opportunity list. (Clinton has an outside shot in Missouri, but almost no chance in Indiana, Alaska, or Louisiana.) New Hampshire, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Arizona are all winnable states for Clinton and are almost certain to get full attention in terms of support from the DNC and DSCC.
