Small Donors May Hurt Democrats' Chances to Flip Senate

[RandySF]

Democrats are eager to depose not just President Trump, but his congressional enablers and defenders, too. And they’re opening their wallets to prove it. In Kentucky, Amy McGrath, the retired fighter pilot who hopes to challenge Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, has raised $16.9 million. Last quarter, Democrats sent $3.5 million to South Carolina to Jaime Harrison, who is challenging Sen. Lindsey O. Graham.

But McGrath, Harrison and several others like them face a problem: They’re probably going to lose. Meanwhile, the candidates challenging less famous, workaday Republicans are struggling to find donors — and many of them are in states or districts that could actually flip. This dynamic is a classic case of pragmatism versus passion in an era when party leaders are losing control of contributions and rank-and-file donors are increasingly inclined to go their own way. But liberal pockets are not bottomless. In a zero-sum competition for cash, the search for brand-name scalps the Democrats may never claim could keep Democrats from winning the seats, and the Senate majority, that is truly within reach.

To put the situation in context, Democrats need to pick up three seats to take control of the Senate (currently 53-47), assuming that none of their incumbents lose. But since Democrats will likely lose Sen. Doug Jones’s seat in Alabama, they must win four seats if a Democrat wins the presidency (with the vice president serving as a tiebreaker) and five if voters reelect Trump.

Forecasters say the most vulnerable Republicans incumbents are Sens. Cory Gardner in Colorado, Susan Collins in Maine, Thom Tillis in North Carolina, Martha McSally in Arizona and Joni Ernst Iowa. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, three of the likely Democratic candidates have raised less than half of their opponents’ haul in the last reporting period. Some of those Democrats have also spent considerable funds trying to win primaries or gain some early name recognition. For example, the Democratic nominee in North Carolina, Cal Cunningham, spent more than $3 million during the primary period and is left only with $1.5 million in cash-on-hand compared to the incumbent, Tillis, who has $5.4 million in his bank account.





https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/03/09/small-donors-democrats-flip-senate/

[KPN]

1. Interesting. nt

[moose65]

2. So,what is the point of this article??

That people shouldn’t donate to McGrath? That we should only donate to people who are going to win? That becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Since the election of Trump, NO election should be off the table!

[tinrobot]

7. That people should donate to more than just McGrath

You're right in that no election should be off the table.

But if candidates in viable races are not getting much-needed donations, they are effectively off the table.

[Butterflylady]

3. I've got one name: Bloomberg

[a kennedy]

4. So we're not winning the Senate ........is that what this article is saying??

[2naSalit]

5. Yup...

I think it's bs.

[SharonClark]

6. The article is saying that we need to donate

to Dems who are running against vulnerable repugs. We need to give to candidates who can win because we have donated to them, where our donations can actually make a difference.

I’ve been on several PACs and the first thing you learn is to put your money where it can have the biggest impact. If you have $5000 and you have to choose between two campaigns, give it to the candidate where that $5000 will make the biggest difference.

That said, it’s difficult for most individual donors to know enough about the political landscape to decide which campaign represents the best use of their donations. So they (including me) donate based on emotions.