Friday night's tweet chain has to do with one of ET's favorite topics - campaign finance, especially with the #GA runoff on the horizon. Some of you may recall the Citizens United v. FEC decision in 2010. Well, it's now backfiring badly on the GOP. Why, you may ask? (1/x)
Although the GOP has been able to raise obscene sums of money and funnel them into their super PACs courtesy of Citizens United, Dems have caught up in a big way in large part due to shifting demographics. Money talks and the way it flows has changed since 2010. (2/x)
Now that Dems rely far more on suburban voters, the latter's disposable incomes funnel individual campaigns rather than how the GOP does it with their super PACs. Some GOP candidates are great individual fundraisers, but not enough of them do so on the level of Dems. (3/x)
We see this with Fetterman, Warnock, Kelly, etc. who raised eye-popping sums on levels that their opposition couldn't possibly match. Oz had to rely on his personal fortune, Masters, Bolduc, etc on super PACs. This paves the way for a bigger problem. (4/x)
When it comes to airing ads and getting good rates for them, candidates pay far less than super PACs. For example, let's say Warnock pays $5 million for an ad blitz. By comparison, it may take McConnell's super PAC $10 million to match Warnock's level. (5/x)
And this is where Dems' individual dollar fundraising advantage comes in. Simply put, they can afford far more for their dollar than the GOP can. It takes the GOP significant effort to keep up with their PACs, burning a lot more money in the process. (6/x)
And what do GOP super PACs rely on? High-dollar donors like millionaires and billionaires and not much else. A lot of their base is now geared toward people with little disposable income. This partially explains why GOP Senate candidates are so shitty at fundraising. (7/x)
At least when it comes to individual campaign contributions, that is. It now becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy where, as a consequence of Citizens United, the GOP is now being beaten over the head with the consequences of their actions. (8/x)
So, in a roundabout way like a lot of other choices they've made (many of which are too long to list), the GOP is finding themselves at the end of a long-term arc that results in them at a disadvantage. Their unleashing of dark money backfired as Dem demographics jump in. (End)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Winning elections isn't just about winning and gaining leverage. It's also about demoralizing the opposition, building a deep bench, setting state organizations up for future success, and more. Let's take a look at my favorite state, #PA, for an example of what I mean. (1/x)
First off, running in an election takes a *lot* of time, especially for statewide contests. You'd be taking years out of your life and a significant amount of commitment if you're serious about winning. So, if you run, you want to have a realistic chance of victory. (2/x)
Fetterman laid the groundwork for this extremely early. He ran for the seat he now holds all the way back in 2016, only to lose to McGinty. Then he tried again after some more prepping. And he won big. What does that do to the opposition, particularly the PA GOP? (3/x)
Now that Pelosi is stepping down as Dem Leader (bless her heart and her service for the country), we need to talk about Hakeem Jeffries, her successor. And @lxeagle17 knows where I'm going with this. It's something that people need to be aware of heading into the future. (1/x)
@lxeagle17 First off, if you're a progressive or enjoy progressive cooperation with other subgroups of the Dem caucus, you're not going to have a fun time with Hakeem. He is very, very weirdly antagonistic to folks who hail from that spectrum. (2/x)
And unlike Pelosi, he has a problem with holding grudges or thumbing the scale pretty hard against factions he does not get along particularly well with. Maybe he mellows out in leadership, but he is unable to tightrope walk as well as his predecessor at the moment. (3/x)
As I conduct the postmortem on #PASen, my thoughts keep drifting back to the one realistic shot Dems have at a pickup in 2024 - #TXSen. This is because I see one element of Fetterman's playbook that can be used there to devasting effect. I'll elaborate. (1/x)
Now, nobody should try to replicate him and his unique brand. Nobody can. It was a mixture of a lot of things that came together properly. But one thing that stands out and can be carried over to other races is the ability to brand opposition candidates as unserious. (2/x)
We already know Ted Cruz is deeply unpopular in Texas. That helped Beto a lot and made it close in 2018, but he didn't quite push/leverage Cruz's unpopularity in as aggressive or as joke-y of a way that Fetterman did. This is a guy who vacationed in Cancun, ffs. (3/x)
I’ll make a lengthy blog post breakdown of what happened in #PASen once everything’s in, but let me take the time to talk about why this midterm was so morale boosting for Dems. We found out that there are very clear limits to what the electorate is willing to accept (1/x)
from election denialism to abortion restrictions to allowing poor general election candidates through from the primary. Trump made things murky in 2016 and 2020, but we, along with GOP leadership, realize that you can only go so far before enough people decide to bite back. (2/x)
Furthermore, this election proved to Dems that not all is lost. Even in unfavorable midterms, it’s possible to do incredibly well even in R-leaning seats by nominating solid candidates, having a good ground game, etc. We’re not bleeding at all. Just need to focus. (3/x)
Now that my pre-election post is out, I need to lay out a few things about how tomorrow goes. Please retweet or save this just so that everyone is abundantly clear about what happens. I want as little stress on you guys as possible. (1/x)
1. I'll start coverage shortly after 6 PM EST and look at what we're getting on the ground before moving to feeding votes into my model once the polls close.
2. I will continuously tweet updates on benchmarks as I get them. IE - Fett needs 30% in Beaver, he's getting 35%.
3. I'm going to be very clearly honest about how the night is unfolding as it progresses. If it's looking bad for either candidate, I will state as such. I may be a Fett shill, but accuracy matters.
1. Fetterman has the $$$ advantage in the final stretch. 2. Fetterman continues to lead in 99% of nonpartisan polls. 3. Fetterman has the distinct home turf/regional advantage. 4. Early returns show (not guaranteed) Fetterman's edge in relation to #3.
Like, I get it. But CCM does not possess 2-3 of the advantages I listed and if you're going to have her favored, that says a lot about how you selectively choose to weigh fundamentals. NV is extremely transient and PA isn't.
Still fully prepared to eat my words on ED if it comes to that, but there is an increasingly disturbing untethering of reality of PA Senate versus actual fundamentals.