Dem
53
Ties
1
GOP
46
One of the storylines of this cycle has been that the Republican Party is awash in cash, while the Democrats are going through the couch cushions desperately searching for change. And this is certainly correct, if you only focus on the big, party-aligned organs like the RNC and the DNC.
That said, we have never accepted that it makes sense on a holistic level. It is true that the GOP has Elon Musk, and the $276 million he's ponied up so far. There are also several other billionaire donors who have gotten out their wallets, like Peter Thiel and Richard Uihlein. However, the Democrats have so much more enthusiasm this cycle (at least, as judged by poll questions about enthusiasm) that you had to assume that the Democrats would make up for the billionaires with far and away more grassroots donations.
The Q3 numbers are rolling in, and early indications are that our suspicions will be sustained. For example, Mary Peltola (D) brought in $17 million as she seeks to unseat Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-AK). To take another example, Adam Hamilton's (D) haul was $10.6 million as he tries to defeat Sen. Roger Marshall (R-KS). That is $23 for every resident of Alaska, and $3.50 for every resident of Kansas, respectively. Clearly, most of that money is coming from out of state.
Along with that, in an interesting turn of events, the various Democratic organs have begun to make up the gap they were ostensibly facing. For example, the House Majority PAC and House Majority Forward, which are House Democrats' two biggest PACs, raised a remarkable $230 million in Q3. That is a record for any quarter, ever, for those groups.
There are just so many complicating factors these days that make it nearly impossible to get the full picture, money-wise. People can donate to the party organs (something Republican donors tend to prefer) or they can donate to the candidates directly (something Democratic donors tend to prefer). They can donate to a wide range of PACs, some defined by their relationship to a particular politician or party (e.g., MAGA Inc.), others defined by a particular issue (e.g., EMILYs List). Of course, thanks to Chief Justice John Roberts and his party of five, those PAC donations might be unknown to the general public.
Still another complicating factor is that some candidates and PACs spend a lot of money to... bring in more money. If one candidate spends $15 million on soliciting donations and brings in $20 million, is that better than a candidate who spends $3 million on solicitations and brings in $10 million? Clearly not, and yet the $20 million gets the headlines. And then, one of the sneakiest issues of all is this: There is enormous motivation for everyone who is collecting donations to plead poverty, so that donors think that their money is desperately needed. James Talarico (D) has been one of the most effective fundraisers this cycle, and yet, to see his YouTube pleas for cash, you'd think his campaign barely has two nickels to rub together. We have absolutely no evidence this is the case, but we would not be surprised if the House Majority PAC and House Majority Forward used a little accounting trickery to make Q2 look bad/desperate, and then to make Q3 look like the Party's momentum is cresting.
Back when most of the donations went through the central party organs, fundraising was a pretty good proxy for enthusiasm, and a useful data point alongside polling. But now, the fundraising is such a black box, you just can't draw firm conclusions. (Z)