Parties agree on Conceding Democracy
What to expect when you're expecting the quarterly FEC reports
If you’ve ever made the mistake of including your phone number on a donation via ActBlue or WinRed, you are more than likely always aware when the end of the fundraising quarter is upon us. With hundreds of races happening at once, it’s become increasingly challenging to determine what and who to focus on.
As early Q1 self-reports trickle in and pundits gawk at the massive fundraising numbers in marquee Senate races, our “Conceding Democracy” reports take a different approach: focus on the Lower Chamber races that could have been, but are not. These races are not sexy, but combined, they make the difference for House control. We know we may sound like a broken record, but we’re hopeful that repetition yields reform: If Democrats had spent money against extremists like Lauren Boebert in 2022 who ended up having surprisingly close races, they would be on the verge of House control right now.
Here’s our round-up of what to watch (with the caveat that since it’s been four months since the last data, the underlying reality may have shifted). We consider a district conceded if the other party does not have a challenger, or if the challenger has less than $200,000 cash on hand.
According to the Q4 2023 filings, roughly 60% of districts that are between even and +10 are uncontested by the other party. Democrats are conceding 58% of districts that are even to R+10, while Republicans are conceding 62% of districts that are even to D+10.
According to the Q4 2023 filings, roughly half of districts that are between even and +5 are uncontested by the other party. Democrats are conceding 50% of districts that are even to R+5, while Republicans are conceding 44% of districts that are even to D+5. To underscore the point, Democrats, who claim to be so concerned with the state of democracy and Dobbs and all things Trump, are essentially forfeiting half the races that could be made interesting with a modicum of effort.
As we look at these races, it’s worth considering that the parties have won districts safely within these bands:
Mary Peltola (AK-AL, R+9)
Jared Golden (ME-02, R+6)
David Valado (CA-22, D+5)
Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (WA-03, R+5)
Matt Cartwright (PA-08, R+4)
Mike Garcia (CA-27, D+4)
What do these concessions look like in reality? Below, we’ll examine the actual races being conceded. These are races to watch to see if serious candidates have emerged since the Q4 findings. And there are many opportunities, as this chart shows:
Republican Concessions
Republican concessions largely fall under three categories: conceding the suburbs, conceding districts with large populations of voters of color, and conceding the state of Illinois (Land of Lincoln, for those into such things as history and the Republic).
Conceding the burbs: As the suburbs have shifted blue, Republicans have increasingly conceded these races. Districts of this mold include Colorado’s 8th, where Republicans have less than $200,000 cash on hand (amount raised, minus amount spent) in an even, suburban district. In Washington, Kim Schreir’s opponent had less than $40,000 cash on hand in Q4, despite her district’s narrow D+1 lean. Greg Landman’s Ohio district, where his Republican has less than $100,000 cash on hand, also fits this mold.
Conceding voters of color: Pundits have focused a lot on the strength that Republicans have seen with voters of colors in recent polling. However, Republicans aren’t seriously contesting these voters in many potentially swingy House districts. Exhibit A is Sanford Bishop’s D+3 Georgia district, where his Republican challenger has raised just $502. And after several cycles of competitive general elections, and even more competitive primaries, Henry Cuellar can enjoy that his challenger in south Texas has only $160,184 on hand.
Illinois blues: The last major bucket of Republican concessions are concentrated in Illinois, where Republicans appear to have basically given up. They aren’t seriously contesting Underwood, Budzinski or Casten. These Democrats face potential challengers with $18,944, $1,767 and $20,997 cash on hand, respectively.
Democratic Concessions
Democratic concessions fall under three major buckets: conceding key California seats Biden comfortably won, under-investing in more rural blue wall Rust Belt districts, and taking a pass on a number of Florida districts.
California conceded: In 2018, California was the big, positive story for Democrats, who swept the districts that Clinton won. Now, Democrats are increasingly conceding key California districts. For instance, in Michelle Steel’s D+2 district (Biden won 52% to 46%), the Democratic challenger reported $66,630 cash on hand in Q4. In Young Kim’s R+2 district (Biden won narrowly, 50% to 48%), the Democratic challenger had $79,976 cash on hand.
Blue Wall falls: For decades, the large Midwestern industrial states made up a “Blue Wall” that Democrats relied on to win tough elections. As their strength with non-college whites has faltered, so too has their focus on these districts. In Wisconsin’s 1st, Bryan Steil’s Democratic challenger has just $2,660 on hand in an R+3 district Biden lost by only two points. In Ohio, Mike Turner faces a Democrat with just $15,074 in an R+4 district Biden lost by 3.5. In Michigan, Bill Huizenga’s opponent has just $91,227 in a R+5 district Biden lost by 4. Finally, in Iowa, Ashley Hinson faces a challenger with $36,002 in an R+4 district Biden lost by 4.4. Recent polling put Democrats ahead in Iowa’s 1st Congressional District, which Biden lost by 2.9.
Fleeing Florida: Maria Elvira Salazar, whose district has an even Cook Political Report rating (Biden lost by 0.3%), faces a Democrat with only $85,914 on hand. Laurel Lee’s challenger (R+4) has a meager $733 cash on hand, and Cory Mills’ (R+5) challenger has only $22,942. Anna Paulina Luna, one of the few Republicans in the House who did not meaningfully outperform Trump, faces a challenger with $151,170, and Aaron Bean (R+6) faces no candidate.
Conclusion
There may be some positive democracy news in the latest fundraising reports slated for release next week. Perhaps parties have found candidates and started to contest these districts. That would be good for democracy: we’ve found that when extremists face serious electoral competition, it pushes them to the center. Our intention is not to suggest that Democrats or Republicans would win these races if they were contested, simply that they could and that we never know what incumbent is surprisingly weak if they don’t face challengers.
Broadly, we see that parties are less invested in contesting House races in states overwhelmingly dominated by the other party (Florida for Democrats, Illinois for Republicans). These trends could be attributed simply to these districts growing less favorable in ways that immediately appear in our numbers, or because the lack of partisan competition on the state level chokes off state legislators and other local offices that are starting grounds for future races.