It did not get a great deal of attention outside of that wonderful community of people known as election junkies, but a critical milestone in the 2010 electoral cycle came and went sans fanfare on Thursday. On that date, the deadline passed for candidates for the upcoming midterm elections to file their second quarter fundraising reports with the Federal Election Commission.

Interest groups, party committees, and habitual donors to campaigns will be more likely to use this particular FEC report to base their decisions for targeting the recipients of their largesse than any other.

With virtually no exceptions, we have reached the point where it is late enough in the cycle for all the candidates to finally be formally declared. So, at this stage, the players in the battle for the balance of Congressional power are known.

Furthermore, this is the last real opportunity for campaigns to demonstrate their financial viability for the home stretch. The next quarterly reports, after all, are not due until well into the Fall. And while campaigns are required to file pre-primary reports, the majority of states have now done so.

So...formally speaking, this was a big freaking deal.

This cycle, especially, provided a lot of intrigue as the numbers came in. Two competing impulses were in competition with one another: the nearly unanimous speculation that this will be a year where the terrain favors Republicans would likely bolster GOP warchests to the detriment of the Democrats. That said, the Democrats still control electoral majorities, and their benefactors would very much like to keep it that way.

How did the numbers shake down? Arguably, a little bit better for Democrats than might be thought.

To simplify matters, let's lay down a few parameters by which this data was gathered. To save about 40 man-hours of poreing over FEC reports, the analysis was limited to just those districts that are on Charlie Cook's competitive race chart. For big Stu Rothenberg fans, no disrespect was intended to the other preeminent horse race analyst. Cook's list was selected simply because it was a bit longer.

This left a total of 118 races. One can certainly quibble with Cook's ratings a bit (I think there are a dozen GOP-held seats not on the list that will ultimately be more competitive than New Jersey 06, where I'd expect Frank Pallone to crush teabagger Anna Little), but they are a pretty fair assessment of the state of play, more or less.

So, in short, don't argue with me if you think that Illinois 14 isn't a tossup.

The compilation of the most recent fundraising totals were for the three-month (or quarterly) totals. This meant, in some cases, adding together two or three separate reports in those states that had primaries and runoffs. So, if the figures cited here are a little different than something you have read, that might explain why. Also provided in the data is the total amount raised to date, and the cash-on-hand figures.

Self-funded campaign figures were treated like any other contributions, but an annotation was made in the list of totals (after the jump) for those candidacies where 40% or more of the total cash was self-funded.

With that out of the way, let's look at a summary of what the numbers told us. Those are interested in the numbers can find them all thrown together in a bunch after the jump.

REPUBLICAN-HELD COMPETITIVE SEATS

Sadly, of course, there aren't very many of these in this particular cycle, according to most campaign analysts. Two cycles of big gains in the House have winnowed down the target list considerably. Given that Democrats had gained north of 50 seats in a four-year span, it really shouldn't be a surprise to see that this cycle is likely to be a defensive one.

That said, the Democrats appear to be well suited to play at least a little bit of offense during the 2010 midterms.

Cook identifies 18 GOP-held seats as competitive. Democrats are financially competitive in several of these seats. Indeed, a fairly good baseline of the health of the incumbent party is enjoying a two-to-one cash on hand edge or better (as you'll see, the Democrats do extraordinarily well by this metric). The Republicans have to be at least a little concerned that Democrats seem to be close to financial parity in these 18 seats. Indeed, the GOP enjoys that doubled-up CoH edge in just 5 of 18 districts (28%). This equals, for what it is worth, the number of these GOP competitive seats where the Democrat enjoys a CoH advantage over the incumbent party. This does include three open seats (DE-AL, IL-10, and MI-03), but it also includes a pair of incumbents (Lungren, Reichert) whose challengers are sitting on more cash than they are.

A couple of these competitive districts have been a bit of a disappointment (CA-44, FL-12, and LA-02 had a trio of Democratic challengers who couldn't break into the six-digit range for the quarter), but in the overall analysis, the Democrats will certainly have the resources to flip at least a few of these seats in November.

DEMOCRATIC-HELD COMPETITIVE SEATS: TIER ONE

Cook identifies a total of 34 seats as either "toss-up" or leaning in the direction of the GOP. Of those 6 seats ruled as leaning in the GOP's directions, there is little in the figures that should counter that perception. Of the six, only IN-08 stands out as a possible overstatement of GOP fortunes. Democratic legislator Trent Van Haaften leads Republican nominee Larry Bucshon in quarterly total and cash-on-hand. An argument could also be made, perhaps, for Stephene Moore, who just got started in KS-03 and outraised leading Republican Kevin Yoder for the quarter. He has pretty big leads in total amount raised and CoH, however, and she probably needs a much bigger quarterly edge to bridge the gap in the next few months. The other four races, however (AR-02, LA-03, NY-29, TN-06) look awfully pessimistic for the Democrats, both from a terrain standpoint and a financial standpoint.

The so-called "toss-up" races, on the other hand, look a bit better for the Democrats. Of the 28 races placed in this tier, Democrats are holding onto 2-to-1 CoH leads in the majority of them (61%). This would seem to be a very clear sign that the Democrats have not been caught flat-footed by the terrain of this cycle, and have been building a financial seawall that they hope can withstand what may well become a wave election.

Those cash edges, incidentally, should only be enhanced in several races (FL-08, MD-01, MI-01, MI-07, NH-01, TN-08, WA-03) where potentially ugly primaries loom for the GOP. Conversely, there is only one Democratic primary that could get expensive and acrimonious (NH-02).

If there is cause for a modicum of concern for Democrats, however, it becomes apparent in the quarterly totals, where the two parties split evenly (14-to-14) on who raised the most cash in Q2. This could be something that accelerates as we head out of the primary season, because many of the GOPers in question emerged from competitive primaries where the expectation is that the party will now coalesce around just one person.

Highlights in this group for the Democrats include several vulnerable incumbents (Pomeroy, Perriello, and Edwards) who clearly recognized their predicament and raised north of $600K for the quarter. A couple of disappointments among the numbers, as well: Larry Kissell has never been a strong fundraiser, and this quarter ($104K) was no exception. Meanwhile, it might be best to reserve judgement on the man who is supposed to hold MI-01 for the Democrats (Gary McDowell). McDowell raised just $137K for the quarter. Backers of the northern Michigan Democrat, however, would certainly argue that he did not have the full quarter, having only leapt into the race in May.

DEMOCRATIC-HELD COMPETITIVE SEATS: TIER TWO

For the second tier of Democratic seats to watch this cycle, let's look at the 66 seats that Cook rates as either "Leans Democratic" or "Likely Democratic". Here, the financial edge for Democrats is even more magnified. Democrats enjoy a 2-to-1 CoH edge or greater in a whopping 57 of 66 races (86%). They also beat their Republican opponents in the quarterly amount raised in the overwhelming majority of cases: Democrats had Q2 leads in 45 races to just 21 for their Republican challengers.

Indeed, the disparities in some of the "Leans Democratic" races would seem to call GOP competitiveness in those races into question, even in spite of the GOP-friendly terrain of the districts involved. It is hard to imagine, for example, that when either Sydney Hay or Paul Gosar emerge from their late primary in AZ-01, that they will have the resources to challenge Democratic freshman Ann Kirkpatrick in a way that would put the Democrat's hold on the seat in any major peril. The same is true in PA-10, where despite the pro-McCain flavor of the district, it is tough to imagine Republican Tom Marino making a charge with a warchest that currently consists of only $11,000 on hand.

There are some seats, conversely, that could easily move to toss-up based on the economic parameters of the race. One such race is the battle in northeastern Ohio's 16th district, where Jim Renacci had a monster second quarter, and has actually pulled ahead of Democratic freshman John Boccieri in total funds raised. Also, Tim Bishop (NY-01) and Betty Sutton (OH-13) have more favorable ground politically, but both must deal with self-funding candidates whose checkbooks are almost comical (Tom Ganley in Ohio has already cut checks to himself for over $6 million).

The factor of primary elections here also works in the favor of the Democrats. While there is only one Democratic primary that could really deplete resources (the open-seat battle in Massachusetts' 10th district), there are more than a dozen upcoming primaries on the Republican side of the ballot that could merit that description.

Of course, as I noted on Sunday Kos last week, money is not everything, especially in so-called wave elections. The comparatively decent financial position of many embattled Democratic candidates ought to be heartening, but ought not be interpreted as a sign that all is well, and that little change in the balance of power is forthcoming. All the campaign dollars in the world won't mean a whole heckuva lot if an incumbent party doesn't utilize them well. How the Democrats in question expend those resources (i.e. how well they can inform voters of their successes and crystallize the choice facing to voters in November) is going to determine the fate of Democratic chances in November to a greater extent than merely how much in the way of resources said Democrats will have to expend.