Recently Breitbart performed a comparative study of fundraising and spending between Republicans and Democrats for key midterm races. As expected GOP was outspent and outraised by a wide margin.
We first look at Arizona
How much was spent?
GOP candidate Blake Masters spent about $1.00 for every $7.50
spent by sitting Democrat Sen. Mark Kelly. OpenSecrets revealed that Kelly spent $73,477,987 in
his successful reelection bid, while Masters only spent $9,412,054.
How much was raised?
Kelly raised an astounding $79.3 million, while Masters managed
to raise merely $12 million.
To make matter worse Arizona took ages to count their votes causing
some to speculate that malpractices may have occurred behind the scenes.
Kelly won the race, he received around 52 percent of
the mandate i.e. 13,22,026 votes while Master managed 46.5% percent of the mandate i.e. 11,96,308
Now for Ohio.
How much was spent?
Sitting Democrat Senator Tim Ryan spent $44.5 million while Republican
J.D. Vance only spent $9 million, meaning that the Republican challenger spent
roughly $1.00 for every $4.90 that his Democrat opponent spent.
How much was raised?
OpenSecrets revealed that Vance raised $12 million while Ryan
raised $47.3 million. Ryan was raised roughly four times more than Vance.
Despite all his shortcomings, Vance won the race perhaps because
there are no discrepancies in counting
Vance received around 53 percent of the mandate i.e. 21,47,898 votes
while Master managed 46.7% percent of the mandate i.e. 18,83,223
The next state is Nevada
How much was raised?
According to OpenSecrets, Democrat sitting Senator Catherine Cortez
Masto raised $52.8 million while Republican Adam Laxalt raised $15.5 million.
The Democrats raised 3 times more than the Republican
How much was spent?
Cortez Masto spent $46.6 million while Laxalt spent $12.3
million. Laxalt spent approximately $1.00 for every $3.80 spent by Cortez
Masto.
In the end, Catherine Cortez Masto won 48.9% of the mandate with
4,93,443 votes while Adam Laxalt secured 48.9% of the mandate with 4,84,436
votes. The victory for Cortez Masto was by a very narrow margin
Now for another Senate race in Nevada
The contest was between Democrat Cheri Beasley and Republican
Ted Budd
How much was raised?
OpenSecrets revealed that Beasley raised $33.8 million
while Budd only raised just over $12.4 million. Beasley raised thrice the amount
that Budd raised.
How much was spent?
Democrat Cheri Beasley spent $30.8 million while Ted Budd spent $12.3 million. The ratio between Beasley and Budd is roughly 3:1.
Despite being significantly outspent, GOP Candidate Ted Budd
won comfortably 50.5% of the mandate with 19,05,786 votes while Cheri Beasley
secured 47.3% of the mandate with 17,84,049 votes.
Next for Georgia
In this high-profile U.S. Senate race, which is headed to a
runoff, Democrat incumbent Sen. Raphael Warnock vastly outraised and outspent his
Republican challenger Herschel Walker.
How much was raised?
OpenSecrets reveals that Warnock raised $98.6 million while
Walker only raised $37.4 million. Warnock raised thrice the amount as Warnock.
How much was spent?
Warnock spent $75.9 million, and Walker spent less than half
as much as Warnock, just over $32 million.
Despite Walker, who has national name recognition due to his sports
career, having significantly less cash than his Democrat opponent, he still
raised roughly three times the funds that Masters or Vance did and twice as much as Ted Budd did.
Now for the Georgia runoff
Warnock still has $29 million on hand, while Walker has $9.8 million.
Warnock raised more than $52 million since late October,
while Walker has raised less than half of that amount, approximately $21 million at the same time.
Now for Pennsylvania
How much was raised?
Republican U.S. Senate candidate Dr. Mehmet Oz raised $40 million dollars while Democrat John Fetterman raised more than $56 million
Oz, who once again had name recognition raised more funds compared to his lesser-known colleagues Masters, Vance, and Budd.
How much was spent?
Fetterman spent $52,148,697 while Dr. Oz spent 37,739,643.
In the end, despite his severe impairments, Fetterman won by 51.2%
of the mandate i.e. 27,47,601 votes while losing candidate Oz secured 46.3% of
the mandate i.e. 24,84,096 votes.
Finally for Alaska.
How much was raised?
Establishment candidate and incumbent Alaska Sen. Lisa
Murkowski raised $10,779,675 while Trump-backed Kelly Tshibaka raised
$4,847,916
How much was spent?
Murkowski spent
$8,673,228 while Trump backed Kelly Tshibaka, who spent $4,155,488.
In terms of fundraised and expenditure, the ratio between Murkowski
and Tshibaka was 2:1.
Murkowski won by 51.2% of the mandate i.e. 1,35,972 votes while
losing candidate Tshibaka secured 46.3% of the mandate i.e. 1,17,299 votes.
Significant blame regarding this disparity in funds must go to Mitch McConnell
During the crucial final stages of the Senate Race in Arizona The Senate Leadership Fund, a super PAC aligned with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, canceled a $9.6 million dollar ad buy for the Republican candidate
Why is funding so important?
Every occurrence in the campaign needs funds. It pays wages
for party workers who can campaign from door to door. It pays for
campaign material.
For candidates with relatively less name recognition, funds can
make the difference. When Democrats fund attack adverts, the GOP can respond with
another advert in the same forum.
This disparity in funding probably explains why they did relatively well during the midterms. In the end, the best candidate in the world is worthless if there is no money to spend that will educate voters about the candidate's greatness.
But that wasn’t all.
A few months ago McConnell unknowingly showed his true intentions
when he engaged in a
veiled attack on MAGA Senate candidates.
McConnell said that "there's probably a greater
likelihood the House flips than the Senate. Senate races are just different —
they're statewide, and candidate quality has a lot to do with the
outcome."
McConnell was conceding defeat, months before the contest
began, this was shocking and unprecedented. In politics, even the worse candidates
and their party leaders express optimism and confidence irrespective of their
electoral prospects.
It was almost like McConnell had no desire to win.
This was a calculated move.
McConnell knew victories in Senate races would be seen as a mandate for MAGA would have made his chances of remaining Senate Leader very slim. Losing the Senate was advantageous to him. The narrative was pushed that this was a rejection of Trump and MAGA, which is conveniently interpreted as a mandate for the establishment i.e. McConnell.
A midterm loss for the GOP is a win for McConnell.
Some GOP
Senators had demanded that the Senate leadership elections be postponed which
would give time for other leadership candidates to push their message and for the
results of the Georgia run-off race to be out.
But their demands were purposefully ignored and the contest between
McConnell and Florida Republican Sen. Rick Scott was held.
Once again this was a calculated move.
Scott had no time to push his message and McConnell had the
advantage of being the incumbent.
Thirty-seven senators voted for McConnell while ten senators voted for
Scott and one senator voted present in a secret-ballot election.
Mitch McConnell has two more years as Senate Leader
Also appears on American Thinker
Comments
Post a Comment