Fran_kie/Shutterstock
Democrats’ recent fundraising success has resulted in some eye-popping individual tallies for Senate candidates. Nine months out from Election Day, Georgia Senator Raphael Warnock has $23 million in cash on hand; Arizona Senator Mark Kelly has $18.5 million. Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, who is in no danger of losing his seat but remains one of the most formidable fundraisers in Congress, has $36 million.
It’s no surprise that donors have been giving in large quantities to Warnock and Kelly. Those two, along with Nevada Senator Catherine Cortez Masto (who has $10 million on hand) and New Hampshire Senator Maggie Hassan ($5.3 million), are the most at-risk Democrats in the Senate; if those four can fend off the GOP, the party will likely be able to retain control of the upper chamber of Congress. Senate races are enormously consequential and expensive, and some senators, like Warnock and Kelly, have earned themselves national followings that make raising money relatively simple.
But donors are also giving pretty hefty sums to more obscure candidates running in states that are pretty much unwinnable for Democrats this cycle. These candidates are impressive individuals and might be great senators, but are in the regrettable position of running in red states during a cycle that is likely going to be bad for Democrats; donors should strongly reconsider giving to them, despite all their good qualities.
Missouri, Iowa, and Kentucky just aren’t winnable seats
In Kentucky, former state legislator Charles Booker is making another run for Senate. In 2020, he was the more progressive alternative to eventual primary winner Amy McGrath. McGrath lost badly, and predictably, to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell; in the process her campaign became notorious for being an obvious waste of donor resources. This cycle Booker is hoping to take down Senator Rand Paul and faces similarly long odds, but that hasn’t stopped him from raising $2.3 million, most of that from small donors.
In Missouri, Lucas Kunce is in a comparable situation. The Marine veteran has raised $2.4 million, again mostly from small donors, as he hopes to fill a seat left open by the retirement of Roy Blunt. Just as some progressives might hope that Booker’s unabashed progressivism could help him win in Kentucky where the more moderate McGrath faltered, there are surely some donors who like Kunce’s blue collar, anti-corporate rhetoric and his background. But Kunce has never held office (he lost a run for state legislature in 2006), and Missouri simply doesn’t have enough Democratic votes.
Finally, there’s Iowa Representative Abby Finkenauer, who has raised just under $2 million. In 2018 she became the first woman to represent Iowa’s First District and also one of the youngest members of Congress ever (she won her race before she turned 30). She’s obviously a rising star in the Democratic Party. But incumbent Senator Chuck Grassley, who at 88 really should not be running again, is going to walk to reelection.
The Cook Political Report, which handicaps Senate and congressional races, rates all three of these contests as “Solid R.” And none of these candidates is outraising their Republican opponents. For donors’ purposes, they are dead ends.
I have a bad feeling about Florida
Florida Representative Val Demings has a more serious chance to unseat Senator Marco Rubio than any of the above candidates do in their respective races. She’s raised $20 million this cycle, Cook rates the race “lean R” rather than “solid R,” and her record as Orlando’s first woman police chief should give her cover against standard Republican “soft on crime” attack lines. (Not that Rubio isn’t trying.)
But… Donald Trump won Florida by four points in 2020. And in 2016, Rubio ran three points better than Trump. What in the past couple of years suggests that Florida is going to have a sudden shift in the Democrats' favor? Is Demings such a uniquely powerful candidate that she can outperform these headwinds by either persuading swing voters or turning out Democratic voters at a record rate? Giving to Demings is by no means in the same category as giving to the above three candidates, but it's worth asking if this is the best place for Democratic donors to spend tens of millions in this election cycle. While the race feels like it could be a winnable matchup on paper (and in the polls), by this time next year we may be talking about it as a pipe dream.
There are lots of better giving strategies out there
Obviously, donors would be better served by giving to other Senate candidates. But given how well-funded most of these campaigns are already, they could also consider giving to House races instead. There are going to be a few dozen competitive ones, and lots of deserving Democrats who will be under siege. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has a list of at-risk members (you should give directly to candidates rather than the DCCC). Swing Left also has a fund that divides gifts between battleground districts.
As for donors specifically looking to build power in Missouri, Kentucky, or Iowa, they should consider donating to a progressive nonprofit doing organizing in one of those states. Those sorts of groups often do registration drives and other activities that (indirectly) help the Democratic Senate candidate, but they will continue to build power for the long haul, while longshot campaigns will disappear after Election Day. If you live in one of these states you may already know groups that do good work; you can also consult Movement Voter Project’s database of organizations that MVP has already vetted. There are lots of organizations and campaigns that could use your money. Why not give to someone who can actually win?