Why Democratic Senate Candidates Shouldn’t Be * Too * Excited By Their Big Money Benefits

In the Ohio Senate race, Democrat Tim Ryan has brought $ 9 million over the past three months. That’s about nine times the amount raised by Republican candidate JD Vance during the same period.

However, recent history suggests that Democrats need to be careful to see funding wins as a precursor to the actual victory in November.

They just have to remember what happened in the 2020 elections.

During that cycle, there were some Democratic candidates who absolutely blew the door in terms of funding:

* In South Carolina, Democrat Jaime Harrison spent more than $ 130 million, well ahead of Republican Senator Lindsey Graham.

* In Maine, Democrat Sara Gideon spent more than $ 60 million. That’s about twice as much as Republican Senator Susan Collins.

* In Kentucky, Democratic Amy McGrath spent more than $ 90 million, reducing the amount spent by Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell at $ 65 million.

Indeed, this is not an exact comparison between apples. South Carolina and Kentucky are much more friendly to the Republicans, especially at the federal level, than Arizona and Pennsylvania, for example.

And you still everytime Rather, be a candidate who spends more money on the race than less money.

But those 2020 results conduct It suggests that money is not decisive in Senate elections. Especially if your opponent has raised and spent tens of millions of dollars.

With the exception of some of the largest and most expensive states, such as Florida, Texas, and California, there may be points of diminishing returns when it comes to cash campaigns in Senate races.

point: The Democratic Party should properly celebrate the funding power of Senator candidates. What they shouldn’t do is think that a big funding lead is to ensure victory.