Happy (early) Halloween.
America’s midterm elections are becoming an extraordinarily expensive argument over who should control Congress.
Democrats see opportunities spreading into Republican territory. Republicans see a difficult battlefield they have the resources to defend.
And with three weeks remaining, neither party can afford to confuse its preferred narrative with the outcome.
The political action group AdImpact projects $11.6 billion in political advertising this cycle, compared with $8.9 billion during the 2022 midterms and $11.2 billion in the 2024 presidential cycle.
If the statistic holds up, it would make 2026 the most expensive advertising cycle on record, even without a presidential contest.
The Republican advantage is substantial — at least on paper.
An Associated Press report recently put the money available to a collection of major Republican groups at approximately $1 billion, compared with $579 million for comparable Democratic organizations. Those figures represent financial capacity, not advertising already delivered. Still, they give Republicans considerable room to maneuver.
Elon Musk has reinforced that advantage.
According to Reuters, he directed $276 million to Republican groups and his own political operation since July, including $158 million to Senate Leadership Fund. His reported $366 million cycle total includes earlier activities and should not be mistaken for money newly committed to congressional campaigns.
Republicans have reasons to welcome the reinforcement.
Nebraska’s Pete Ricketts faces another challenge from independent Dan Osborn. Kansas Sen. Roger Marshall is confronting Democrat Adam Hamilton. Texas has become an expensive contest between Republican Ken Paxton and Democrat James Talarico.
Defending those states consumes money Republicans would certainly prefer to spend elsewhere.
But expensive defenses are not defeats.
Republicans retain established constituencies in those states, and recognizing a threat early enough to answer it is preferable to assuming partisan loyalty will do the work. Resources can keep challengers from defining incumbents uncontested and help campaigns reach supporters who need encouragement to vote.
Midterms frequently punish the president’s party. Acknowledging that history can create urgency without conceding the election. His confidence that Republicans can overcome it remains a campaign judgment, but the party has meaningful tools available.
Polls deserve scrutiny. Their usefulness depends on whom they reach, how they weight responses and how accurately they anticipate turnout. A narrow lead is particularly vulnerable to those assumptions. Several surveys pointing in the same direction deserve attention, but they still cannot tell us with certainty who will vote.
Spending decisions provide another window into campaign expectations. When both parties commit substantial money to Kansas, that suggests a contest they take seriously. It does not establish that Democrats are winning. Strategists can purchase insurance, misjudge an opponent or respond to the same imperfect polling that everyone else sees.
Nor does every dollar spent in a party’s stronghold mean the same thing. Democrats can burn through substantial sums in contentious primaries in safely liberal districts. Those battles may drain donors and divide activists without changing which party ultimately holds the seat. Republicans can incur identical costs during their own primaries.
That spending differs from defending a seat against the other party, but it complicates sweeping comparisons. Cycle totals can include expensive intraparty struggles that contribute little to winning congressional control. And money given to a particular primary candidate was not necessarily available for a national committee to redirect.
Democratic enthusiasm also exceeds Democratic resources in some places.
The party’s House campaign committee has asked donors for $17 million to pursue additional opportunities. Calls to invest in Florida include arguments about building an activist base for the future.
Those ambitions should not be treated as evidence of imminent victories.
Republicans must nevertheless spend effectively. Late advertising can cost more, and outside groups do not always receive the favorable television rates available to candidates. A financial advantage therefore does not translate neatly into an equivalent advantage in voters reached.
Organization and the persuasiveness of the message remain essential.
The practical Republican opportunity is to turn financial strength into participation. Voters disappointed by prices may still prefer Republican policies or reject the Democratic alternative. Reaching them requires credible answers about household costs and a clear explanation of what congressional control would change, followed by the work of getting them to vote.
Democrats have openings, but Republicans have the means to contest them.
Record spending guarantees neither a wave nor a recovery.
It does ensure that this election remains a serious fight — and Republicans still have ample reason to stay in it.
(Contributing writer, Brooke Bell)