On the verge of losing control of Senate, Dems consider their spending options
Florida and Texas now getting their attention
The Democrats can almost taste achieving their twin goals of taking control of the government and radically transforming it. All they need to do is (1) win the presidency, (2) maintain control of the Senate, (3) win control of the House, and (4) having accomplished (1)-(3), end the Senate filibuster, pass transformative legislation by simple majority votes in both chambers, and pack the Supreme Court.
In my opinion, the Dems will more likely than not achieve (1) and (3). Although these outcomes are far from certain, the main sticking point is (2) — holding the Senate.
If the election goes exactly as current polling indicates, the Dems will fall one short of controlling the 50 seats they’ll need to run that chamber under a President Harris. (If Trump wins, it’s very likely that the GOP will have at least the 50 seats they’ll need for control.) As the polls now stand, Republicans will pick up two seats — West Virginia, where their candidate is miles ahead, and Montana, where their candidate has consistently led by more than five points. And they will hold every seat they now have.
With so much at stake and the tide running against them, Democrats are at odds about the races deserving the bulk of their attention — i.e., their cash. According to the Washington Post, one camp wants to focus on defending the seats the Democrats hold, especially the one in Montana. The other camp, despairing of winning in Montana, wants to splash the cash in two states where the GOP is defending seats — Florida and Texas.
Sen. Gary Peters, head of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, is in the first camp. He bases his position on past experience.
He’s seen the Dems unsuccessfully chase seats in Red States, spending huge sums of money, to no avail. The unsuccessful campaigns of Beto O’Rourke (Texas) and Jaime Harrison (South Carolina) are probably the best examples. (The real lesson from these races might be that, beyond a certain level of expenditure, money doesn’t make much difference.)
Peters also recalls that he nearly lost his seat in Michigan because (in his view) the Democrats underfunded him while chasing “shiny” but unattainable objects in Red states. Not wanting to repeat the error, he has directed little money, comparatively speaking, to Florida and Texas. Although willing to increase spending in these states, he seems reluctant to go all-in there.
The other camp is led by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse. He’s convinced that the Florida seat held by Sen. Rick Scott is gettable if the Dems pour enough money into the race. He also believes that, with enough money, the Dems might take down Sen. Ted Cruz.
The polls suggest that, for the Democrats, this might be a case of pick your poison. It’s true that in Florida, an Emerson poll from early this month showed Scott ahead by only 1 point. However, since then three polls with many more respondents have put Scott up by 3, 4, and 5 points. A more recent poll had Scott ahead by 8, but it surveyed only 400 likely voters.
As for Texas, Democrats can take heart from a recent poll by Morning Consult that has the Democrat leading Cruz by 1 point. But two other polls from this month have Cruz ahead by 4 and 5 points, and a poll from late last month had him up by 8.
Oddly, one of the polls from this month that I just referenced (the one that had Cruz leading by 5) was from Morning Consult. It was taken during a two-week period that ended the day before the beginning of the two-week Morning Consult survey that had Cruz trailing by 1. I’m not sure how that race could have changed course by 6 points in two weeks.
In Montana, Sen Jon Tester’s prospects seem a little worse than those of the Democrats in Florida and Texas. The three most recent polls I’ve seen — all from mid-to-late August — have Tester trailing by 6, 8, and 7 points. However, a poll from early August had Tester up by 5. That one certainly looks like an outlier, but I’d feel more confident about this race if I saw September poll results.
Peters doesn’t just want to focus on holding the Montana seat. He’s also concerned about other seats the Democrats are defending.
Should he be? No and yes.
In Pennsylvania, the polls have incumbent Sen. Bob Casey pretty comfortably ahead. In Michigan, the Democrat is also well ahead.
In Arizona, Republican Kari Lake seems to be headed for another defeat. Expect this Trump protégé to claim victory, nonetheless.
I once had high hopes for Nevada. However, Sen. Jackie Rosen now seems far ahead in that race.
In Maryland, Larry Hogan’s candidacy gave the GOP some hope of a pick up. However, his opponent, Angela Alsobrooks, seems to be far ahead now.
It has just been revealed that Alsobrooks improperly claimed tax deductions to which she was not entitled. I doubt this will hurt her much, though. Marylanders are hell bent on electing a Democrat, and have never been much bothered by dishonesty.
But two incumbent Democrats do seem to be in a spot of bother. They are Sherrod Brown in Ohio and Tammy Baldwin in Wisconsin.
Brown has been unable to shake car dealer Bernie Moreno. In polls taken earlier this month Brown’s lead was 1-3 points. A poll released today has Moreno ahead by 1 point. That poll surveyed only 400 voters. Nonetheless, this race looks very tight.
Baldwin consistently leads in Wisconsin polls. But in most of the recent ones, her lead has been only around 3 points.
So where should Democrats be spending most of their money? Based on publicly available polls, the answer seems to be Oho, first and foremost, and then Wisconsin, Texas, and Florida (not necessarily in that order).
Where have they spent most of it so far? The Post has a graph showing overall ad spending by Democrats and their allies in the states discussed above. The top three are Ohio (167 million), Pennsylvania (138 million), and Montana (119 million, which must go a long way there). The bottom three are Texas (39 million), Maryland (38 million), and Florida (only 5 million).
If internal polling is similar to what’s publicly available, we will see a significant shift. Florida and Texas might be “shiny objects,” but with Montana in jeopardy and Ohio very close, Sheldon Whitehouse is right. The Democrats must pursue them vigorously.
Great analysis. I hope Paul's wrong about the presidential outcome. I shudder to think of Kamela Harris in the Oval Office. Jim Dueholm