The tired and recycled headline is back.
The Republicans have the money while the Democrats are out of it. But that does not end the midterms; it only tilts the money race. That is the setup, not the story.
That’s not analysis; it’s just a press release with a masthead.
Right: the committees and the super PACs are filled. MAGA Inc. entered September with around $416 million. Republican-linked groups intend to spend about $221 million more on advertising than the Democrats from this week until Election Day. The amounts set aside are approximately $682 million for the GOP and $491 million for the Democrats. Total advertising spending in Senate, House, and state races: $888 million compared with $666 million.
That section is genuine; treat it as such, and then read what follows as the next step.
Now consider the effect of the money. A war chest is not the same as a majority, and a TV reservation is not the same as a coalition that still exists. This piece answers that question.
Two piles of money
Don’t regard “money” as if it were a single figure.
There is so-called candidate money—that is, the cash belonging to a candidate as listed on the ballot, which enables him to secure lower advertising rates, and which must be raised from real people.
Funding also comes from outside sources—such as party committees, super PACs, MAGA Inc., and the twenty richest people in the country.
That pile isn’t the same one, and the distinction matters.
In August, Democratic and Republican candidates raised about $1.5 billion and $1.1 billion, respectively. Nine out of the ten largest individual fundraisers this cycle are Democrats. Jon Ossoff raised $77 million. James Talarico raised about $69 million. Before the flow of funds was increased, Ken Paxton’s campaign was in the single digits.
Read it again.
The party which is said to be ‘broke’ is winning the only money race that still resembles a campaign. The party with the ‘advantage’ is winning the money race that resembles a rescue, not a victory. That is the difference that matters.
Candidate adverts are less expensive than those run by super PACs. That is why ‘who has reserved more television time’ and ‘who can actually talk to voters at scale’ are not the same question: one is a campaign, the other is a florist’s budget at a funeral.
If you print just the second number, you’re doing PR. If you want the story, keep going.
Watch where they spend it.
September exposed them.
For the first eighteen days of the month, advertisers backing the Republicans in ten important Senate races spent over $204 million, which is $83 million more than the amount spent by the Democrats. This marked a change from August, when the Republican lead in those races had been around $9 million.
The biggest deficit was in Texas, where the amount was $62 million less than that of Paxton this month, compared with $17 million behind Talarico. CNN says the GOP is on course to spend 8 times as much as the other side in that race by Election Day.
You wouldn’t burn that much cash in a state Trump won by thirteen points if you felt at ease.
This action follows the 2024 ‘realignment’ and now shows it plainly.
I have already set out the Texas version of this story: they did not start a rescue operation worth nine figures because they were ahead of the situation, but because the internal situation had left them in a state of great anxiety. The present article is the national version of that same story.
The money isn’t paying for new states; it’s merely renting oxygen for seats that were previously automatic. That is what the spending is for.
The defense map
Here’s what they now have to pay for.
Texas: Trump leads by 13.6 percent in 2024, and the state is now a Cook toss-up. A Democratic state representative has outraised the Texas attorney general by a margin that would have been ridiculed two years ago.
It’s Ohio. Trump leads by 11. Sherrod Brown isn’t meant to be in this race, yet he is.
It’s Alaska. Trump leads by 13. Mary Peltola isn’t meant to be in this race, yet she is.
Iowa. Trump leads by 13. Open seat. Toss-up.
It’s Maine, Susan Collins, the founding member of the ‘she always survives’ franchise, and Harris has won that state. The race is a toss-up. Collins had a personal brand strong enough to overcome a national collapse; that brand is now just a line item.
Kansas has not had a Democrat appointed to the Senate since 1932; JD Vance had to fly in, too.
It’s Nebraska, and Trump is leading by 20 points. They are treating an independent candidate as if one were possible and are spending money as if that were the case.
Cook’s list of Senate races considered toss-ups now includes Texas, Ohio, Alaska, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, and New Hampshire. That isn’t the party being on the attack; rather, it’s the party realizing that a ‘Trump state’ has never actually been the same as a ‘safe Republican state’ when Trump isn’t the candidate on the ballot.
The movie here is the same one, only with more precincts.
The DCCC have placed 58 seats that are held by members of the GOP on the board. They have included Lauren Boebert. They have included Richard Hudson—the person who runs the National Republican Congressional Committee. They have included Alaska’s at-large seat. The NRCC is aiming for 36.
One side is placing more squares into play, while the other is writing larger cheques to avoid losing the squares it already has.
Redistricting was meant to be the solution. Republicans redrew maps in several states, hoping to secure a double-digit seat gain. But the environment swallowed most of that gain. In Texas, Florida, Ohio, and North Carolina, districts drawn to be safe are still competitive. You can’t create a coalition again by gerrymandering.
The 2024 majority is not a bloc.
Money cannot remedy this. That is the point.
A living majority coalition enters the midterm elections and grows; a dead majority coalition does so and has to rely on a slush fund.
From the American Research Group, between September 16th and 20th: approval of Trump stood at 29 percent and disapproval at 68 percent. On the economy, approval was 26 percent and disapproval 71 percent. That is not a favorable outcome mid-term. That is a ditch.
NBC reports that 43 percent of voters say their vote in Congress signals opposition to Trump, while 27 percent say it signals support; among independents, almost half say it signals opposition and a small number say it signals support.
The Economist’s account of the 2024 electorate contains the most straightforward sentence: 76 percent of those who support Harris intend to vote for the Democratic Party in November. 65 percent of Trump’s supporters plan to vote Republican. One in five of his own 2024 voters now disapprove. Most of the others are not changing their minds; instead, they are shrugging, staying home, or writing ‘undecided’.
The New York Times and Siena, among likely voters, showed Hispanics supporting the Democratic Party 68 to 25, those under 30 64 to 29, and independents 57 to 34; these groups were the ones they presented as the new durable majority. Twenty months later, they don’t behave as if they form such a majority.
The coalition in 2024 wasn’t a conversion; it was a rental, and the receipt was due.
Money can secure the airwaves, but it can’t bring back people who have already left.
What the headline is for
The purpose of the story about the “GOP money advantage” is to keep you from looking at the map. That is the misdirection.
When you examine the committees, the Republicans are richer. When you look at MAGA Inc., the Republicans are richer. When you consider the twenty largest donors, most have opened the vault for the GOP even though the party is performing poorly in public polls. That isn’t a working-class revolt; it’s a bidding war.
If you examine the candidates’ accounts, Democrats are collecting more money from people who still plan to live in the area.
When you look at the target lists, Democrats are gaining seats while Republicans are holding on to seats that didn’t need a defense budget.
If you examine the coalition, the majority in 2024 is beginning to break away from the demographic groups that they had boasted about.
So when a consultant gets on television and says “but the money,” translate it:
They’re spending more because the coalition has already collapsed; it is not because they are about to run the table.
They’re paying ransoms based on the previous map.
That is not strength. That is a dead majority with a credit card, not a living coalition.
Follow the map. Not the florist budget for a funeral. That is the only way to read this race.
-Maine
🫎🇺🇸🦞
X
Instagram
Facebook
TikTok
BlueSky
Site: wonkstack.com