Cash blitz could boost Democrats’ House chances, but their hopes of taking the Senate remain slim
As the 2018 midterm elections draw nearer, Democratic candidates are setting new records in terms of campaign fundraising. Although Republicans are doing fine with their fundraising, raising about the same or more than the 2016 election, the Democrats are raising an unprecedented number of dollars ranging from the high six figures to millions of dollars. There seems to be a donor surge to the Democrats, fueled in part by small or infrequent donors. As a result, at least 90 Democratic candidates are raising more than a Republican incumbent with about 65 raising over one million dollars. With Democrats needing to flip 24 seats in the house to gain a majority, the chances of the Democrats taking the house are increasing.
An example of how Democratic candidates are raising more than previous years can be seen in Texas. Texas' 21st Congressional District, which incorporates parts of San Antonio and Austin, has been held by Republicans since 1978, but this year, Joe Kosper, the Democratic candidate, raised $2.4 million, more than Chip Roy, his Republican opponent and more than 10 times more than the previous Democratic candidates in the district combined since 2008.
Looking at Kosper's fundraising, much of it came from out of Texas with money coming from New York, San Francisco and Washington illustrating a trend among most Democratic candidates: a significant amount of money raised came from online and around the country.
However, Hillary Clinton out-fundraised Donald Trump by a 2-to-1 ratio and still lost. Republicans also have a lot of advantages from gerrymandering to the fact that they are incumbents in most battleground districts. Yet, with campaigning and advertisements being so expensive, and the out-fundraising of so many Republican incumbents, Democrats retaking the house is definitely achievable.
Sources:
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/19/democrats-look-to-win-house-in-midterms-but-senate-chances-are-dim.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/paloma/the-trailer/2018/10/02/the-trailer-democrats-are-breaking-fundraising-records-republicans-blame-outsiders/5bb37b851b326b7c8a8d17be/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.f5bb324597eb
https://www.vox.com/2018/7/19/17587286/midterms-2018-house-republicans-fundraising-q2
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/17/midterms-house-republicans-fundraising-728401
https://www.vox.com/2018/7/19/17587286/midterms-2018-house-republicans-fundraising-q2
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/17/midterms-house-republicans-fundraising-728401
3 comments:
I recently read an article by Nate Silver on FiveThirtyEight about this fundraising edge, and I think the big takeaway is that the operative word in the title of this blog post is "could." As stated in Silver's piece, the extra money could go either way. On one hand, it could be a sign of increasing Democratic enthusiasm and involvement and therefore cause an enormous swing in the midterms. On the other hand, it could have a minimal effect because fundraising in the information age is less critical and donations from external groups have more of an impact. I believe it is something in the middle; Democrats do seem to be more eager to vote this election cycle, although I think the majority of that has to do with them not being the party in power, a factor every model should have already taken into effect. The money could be an added bonus, but with FiveThirtyEight calling this edge "unprecedented," the results of this election will definitely be a barometer for how fundraising is accounted for in the future.
I think that the money is more of an indicator of enthusiasm from Democrats than something that will give the democrats an significant edge on campaigning. I don't think that any campaigning advantage will impact the election very much since both sides are doing it anyways, and it's even harder to use advertising to convince people to change their minds especially since our country is so polarized. Instead I view these donations as a sign that Democrats will be more active in the 2018 midterm elections than in previous ones. There's no way to know for sure if the Democrats will take the House or possibly the Senate until the election happens, but the increase of money is a good sign.
I don't see a good parallel between this news and the 2016 presidential election in terms of fundraising and its effects. Naturally, presidential candidates get constant news coverage, unlike congressional candidates, so money spent on a presidential campaign is comparatively much less significant.
Post a Comment