Politico describes the Democrats' problem with their grand ambition for a Senate takeover: "Democrats’ eyes may be bigger than their wallets."
Indeed, it's not that Democrats don't have as much campaign cash as Republicans. No political party in history competing in off-year elections has ever had as much cash as the Republicans in 2026. Republicans have more than $1 billion available for the 2026 midterms when you include national committees, Trump-aligned PACs, and major GOP super PACs.
Democrats barely have enough cash to fund their main Senate targets, where they feel Republicans are most vulnerable. These include Maine, North Carolina, Ohio, Iowa, and Alaska. Why are they "expanding the map" into deep red states? Because a few surveys show them being competitive.
It's not a very good idea. If you combine the cash from the Democratic National Committee (DNC), the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC), and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), Democrats have just $136 million.
Democrats are trying to close the fundraising gap in individual Senate and House races where they have raised significantly more than their Republican opponents. For example, House Democrats have raised about $1 billion while GOP House candidates have raised a little over $805 million. Senate Democrats have raised $579 million vs. GOP $336 million.
It's not as significant when you consider that safe incumbents raise almost as much as threatened incumbents in order to scare off potential challengers. The money from party committees and super PACs pouring into tight races in red states like Texas and Ohio cannot be matched by the Democrats.
While money isn't the critical resource it once was, ask any Republican whether they'd rather have more or less money to run on, and the answer is obvious.
American Bridge PAC has pumped $2.1 million into Mississippi, where it is running ads targeting GOP Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith. The state’s population is poor and mostly rural — two groups that have been particularly squeezed by high gas prices. Democrats have long dreamed it could become competitive, and Hyde-Smith didn’t reach 55% of the vote in her two previous Senate wins.
The PAC also on Wednesday put $2.5 million into Florida, $630,000 into South Carolina and over $410,000 into Kansas as part of a $22.7 million investment on 6,000 billboards focused on higher costs spanning roughly 80 House and Senate races, the group said.
“We are very aware that a durable majority means we are going to have to compete in totally new places, in states where we haven’t competed before,” American Bridge 21st Century President Pat Dennis told POLITICO on Wednesday. “And we also know that those changes don’t happen all at once, they’re investments over years.”
"But Democrats, despite polling well, are being massively outspent on the airwaves across the core battleground states," notes Politico. "They’re already heavily investing in a swath of states President Donald Trump won in 2024 by double-digit margins — Alaska, Iowa, and Ohio and, most recently, Texas."
This is the second reason that Democrats are blowing it; those four states are four of the most Republican states in the Union. How they look in early October could very well be a mirage. History shows that voters in both parties "come home" as the election gets closer. A five-point Democratic lead could disappear in the next few weeks as Republicans begin to focus on what's at stake.
You may notice I didn't mention the polls, which are what have excited the Democrats and, frankly, made them a little loopy. If the last decade has shown us anything, it's that pollsters are missing voters who rarely vote. These "low propensity voters" are very difficult to spot and, try as they might, pollsters regularly underestimate them.
Is this a Trump phenomenon? Pollsters note that voters from both parties are more reluctant to talk to them, with some polls getting a response from only one out of ten queries. They make up for the lack of real data by "weighting" responses. It's statistically sound, but sometimes it goes a little haywire. In the Michigan Democratic Senate primary, pre-election polls had Abdul El-Sayed up by 7 to 14 points over Mallory McMorrow Stevens. El-Sayed won by less than a percentage point.
Pollsters vastly overstated El-Sayed's support and underestimated Stevens' support. In this case, enthusiasm among radical leftists and reluctance among Stevens voters led to what pollsters call "nonresponse bias."
You've been hearing it from every PJ Media writer: Pay no attention to the polls. Even good, reputable pollsters are scratching their heads and adding qualifiers to their results. Better to just assume that all the races are close and that your vote might make a difference.