Dem
49
GOP
51
House and Senate Republicans are looking at a big hole. Their Democratic counterparts have more money than they do. As of the end of June, the Democratic committees had $37 million more than the Republican committees. As a consequence, House and Senate Democrats are on the air much more than the Republicans.
In the short term, the problem is only going to get worse. Kamala Harris has been collecting more money than she can probably spend. So, she has decided to donate $24.5 million to support downballot Democrats. The DSCC will get $10 million, the DCCC will get $10 million, and the DLCC (which focuses on state legislative races) will get $2.5 million. The DGA (Democratic Governors Association) and DAGA (like MAGA, but with a "D," and standing for "Democratic Attorneys General Association") will also get a million each.
No doubt, each of them will appreciate the donation, but given that Harris raised $540 million in the first month of her campaign, she has money to burn. It really doesn't matter if TV viewers in Philadelphia each see 12 ads per night or 15 ads per night. In fact, beyond a certain point, they will begin to seriously annoy people, unless all the ads are different and clever. Winning the election but not controlling Congress will make her a lame duck from Day 1, so we are surprised that she is being so frugal with the other committees. To us, capturing Congress really ought to be a very high priority for her.
Maybe the reason Harris is not helping the DSCC and DCCC more is that they are doing pretty well on their own. Both groups are already running ad blitzes in multiple markets. One way she could spend money that helps both her and Senate candidates is to open offices in key swing states like Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Arizona, and Nevada, where there are also important Senate races. The offices can help both Harris and the Senate candidates. While too many ads can annoy voters, there is no such thing as too many offices or too big a ground game. The offices can be staffed with people whose job right now is to get people registered, especially women, young people, and minorities. Even a one-person office in a rural county could help if the person running it knows how to find likely Democrats to register, for example, on a college campus in the county.
At a Republican retreat at Jackson Hole, WY, in August, Dan Conston, president of the largest Republican House super PAC, the Congressional Leadership Fund, said he needed $35 million to compete with the Democrats. He could go, hat in hand, to wealthy donors, and see if they are willing to pony up. The problem is that rich fat cats generally understand the concept of return on investment very well. They tend to be willing to throw money at the Republicans if they believe they will win and can then help them, either by cutting their taxes or preventing the Democrats from raising them. But current House polling on the generic ballot is moving toward the Democrats, and the prospect of losing the House doesn't make potential donors more willing to pony up.
Of course, candidates with a national standing are often good at raising their own money and don't need help from the party committees. For example, in Arizona, Rep. Ruben Gallego (D-AZ) and his allies have a $57 million advantage over Kari Lake, and this doesn't even account for his built-in advantage since he is the sitting congressman from Phoenix. Sens. Jacky Rosen (D-NV) and Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) each have a $41 million advantage over their challengers. Baldwin's challenger, Eric Hovde, is a multimillionaire banker who lives in Laguna Beach, CA, who could close the gap personally. But polls show him way behind Baldwin and he may not want to throw good money after bad, especially since it is his money in question.
Yesterday, the Trump campaign announced that it had raised $130 million in August and had $295 million in the bank. The Harris campaign has not reported its August haul yet, though details that the campaign has shared indicate that her take was north of $300 million. (V)