First, remember that early voting starts tomorrow, September 22. (I’m still surprised that most of the campaigns aren’t pressing hard on this.)

Second, financial reports covering 7/1 – 8/31/23 were due last Friday, 9/15. Looking at the reports, it seems that some candidates who had to run in a primary delayed payment of some bills until after the 6/30 previous filing deadline. For them, there were significant expenditures early in July, which made their 6/30 Cash on hand higher.

After reviewing the 9/15 financial reports for the eleven contests I previously identified as Competitive or potentially competitive, here’s where I think we are (rating changes in bold):

The big 3

HD 97 continues to be the most competitive contest in Hampton Roads. Although Feggans Raised less money ($381,813 to Greenhalgh’s $546,954), he got contributions from more donors – 243 donors each contributing over $100 and a whopping 2,026 donors each contributing less than $100 – compared to Greenhalgh’s 91 over $100 and just 37 under $100. This is indicative of his broad support. Feggans also has less cash on hand – $381,501 to $521,824 – but this is because of the ad production expenses he paid before the end of the reporting period.

I’ve moved the rematch in SD22 to Lean D. Rouse isn’t way ahead in the funds raised this period ($188,192 to $155,222 for Adams) but has more than double Adams’ cash on hand ($306,839 to $151,044). Combined with the fact that Rouse had more donors, I think – at least at this point – it may be difficult for Adams to catch up. Will Youngkin come to the rescue?

I may have to move SD24 to the most competitive race soon. In this reporting period, Mason lagged behind Diggs in fundraising ($461,690 to $542,195) but due to the size of his war chest coming in, was able to spend $338,000 more than Diggs and only be $68,000 behind in cash on hand. Both candidates spent money on ads, with most of Mason’s additional spending going to this. Diggs got more donors over $100 (404 to 309) but Mason nearly tripled Diggs’ number of donors under $100 (721 to 255). At this point, I’m thinking this race is going to come down to the wire.

The other 8

Let’s tackle the rating change ones first.

In the open seat in HD84, Clark more than doubled Dillender in money raised – $262,492 to $126,050 – and had far more donors. Even though Clark outspent Dillender by more than 2:1 ($123,370 to $57,023), Clark had more than twice as much cash on hand ($237,955 to $116,257). I will continue to monitor this race but for now, it is Lean D.

I thought the open seat in HD89 would be competitive but the 9/15 reports don’t indicate that’s going to happen. Ennis raised $201,950 while Jenkins only raised $45,203. Ennis had $198,946 cash on hand while Jenkins only had $22,568 – less than what she had at the beginning of the reporting period. I’m rating this Lean R but this one could be a blowout.

I rated HD93, which is my district, as potentially competitive mainly based on cash on hand at 6/30. The situation hasn’t really changed from that perspective: Glass has $15,238 on hand compared to Sitka’s $12,640, after he loaned his campaign another $5,000 (bringing his total loans to $20,600). Neither candidate is raising any money; Glass had 10 donors over $100 and five under $100 for a total of $7,990 raised while Sitka had just one donor over $10 and just two under $100 for a total of $3,625 raised. How I hate living in a district that, demographically, means we may never have a real contest, not to mention a competitive one. (I’ve lived in the same place for almost 24 years. My home used to be in a competitive district.) Only because it’s my district will I continue to monitor this race. It’s probably a strong D but I’m only going to Lean D.

The open seat in SD17 is living up to its VPAP competitive rating. Brewer is outraising – and out-spending – Jenkins in cash in this race. Noncash contributions and spending for Jenkins are keeping this one competitive. Brewer only has $30,000 more cash on hand than Jenkins ($124,982 to $94,693), neither number being anything to write home about. I’ve no doubt the parties are going to kick in some money. Definitely one to watch.

My senate district is the open seat SD21. Somehow I missed that Dolmo ran as a Republican against Jackie Glass in the old HD89 special election in 2022. In that contest, he raised almost as much as Glass did, but lost by more than 50 points (that’s demographics, folks). To date, he has had only 1 contribution for $50. Graves didn’t start the reporting period with a ton of cash. After spending $385,000 in the primary, she had just $17,130 on hand at 6/30. She has since raised $78,915 while spending only $25,488, leaving her with $70,557 on hand. I’m not sure why Dolmo is even in the race, other than to not have Graves’ name the only one on the ballot. At this point, a rating of Strong D is applicable. (Like my house district, this one used to be competitive, too.)

I’ve kept HD71, HD94, and HD96 as potentially competitive contests.

In HD71, I’m surprised that Batten hasn’t raised more money. Anderson is still behind in cash on hand, but not as far back as she was before.

In the open seat HD94, Hernandez is crushing it in fundraising – both in dollars and number of contributors -and in cash on hand. However, I think this is somewhat temporary as Pittman had to run in a primary. I am aware of fundraisers planned for both candidates, plus Pittman has previously loaned his campaign money.

I’m keeping my powder dry on HD96. The primary left Fowler with no cash at all but she outraised Karslake by 3:1, albeit with fewer donors, and has more cash on hand – $41,569 to $28,742. Neither of these sums seems sufficient to run a real race but who knows? I do not consider Olenik to be a factor.

The next financial reports, covering the month of September, are due 10/16.