Abrams has struggled, despite raising record sums. Al Teich/Shutterstock
Here at Blue Tent, we recommend candidates and organizations to donors based on the assumption that giving money strategically makes a difference. Some groups are more effective than others at voter outreach and organizing; some candidates face fundraising deficits while others are short of cash. We’re not alone in thinking about these issues — many organizations, from Swing Left to the States Project, have been focused on making Democratic giving more effective and strategic. And donors have stepped up, in many ways. A lot of state legislative candidates, who have in past cycles gone ignored and underfunded, have raked in huge amounts of money. Candidates for secretary of state and attorney general positions have mostly built up larger war chests than their GOP rivals.
But it’s worth noting that money only takes you so far. It’s vital for campaigns to raise money, of course, and certainly possible to lose because your opponent has more resources. But there are limits to what donations, even perfectly targeted donations, can achieve. A few points on the limits of money, as illustrated by the 2021-22 election cycle:
Money can’t make races competitive
In 2020, Democratic Senate candidates outraised Republicans by over $150 million. Unfortunately, a lot of that money went to candidates in red states like Kentucky and South Carolina, in races that were essentially unwinnable. Some states and districts just have too many Republican voters and not enough Democratic voters, and even the best turnout and persuasion operations money can buy will change that math.
This seems like an obvious point, but donors are still putting too much money into unwinnable races, like Marcus Flowers’s doomed effort to unseat Majorie Taylor Greene in Georgia’s 14th District, which has garnered $14 million in donations. And candidates and Democratic committees still make misleading fundraising appeals in order to raise cash. (One recent DSCC email described Kentucky Senator Rand Paul as “vulnerable,” which he definitely is not.)
Money can’t change the fundamentals
In the 2021 Virginia elections, Democratic donors flooded the state with cash, to the point where their state legislative candidates outraised their Republican opponents by a more than two-to-one margin. Nevertheless, Democrats lost control of the state to Republicans. Fundraising couldn’t overcome the usual backlash against the party that wins the prior year’s presidential election; no amount of ads were going to convince a decisive segment of voters that Democrats should be rewarded for Biden’s first year in office.
Something similar is happening now during the midterms. Voters who blame Democrats for high gas prices and inflation are almost certainly going to hand Republicans the House on Election Day. There’s not much Democratic candidates, campaign professionals, or donors can do about that. They can do various things to minimize the damage, but there are going to be a lot of candidates who lose this year through no fault of their own.
Money can’t buy a better candidate
One thing that this cycle is demonstrating is the importance of candidate quality. Given such a positive political environment, Republicans should have a strong chance to win Senate elections in Georgia and Pennsylvania, but nominated, respectively, a scandal-laden former football star and a TV doctor who may both snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. In New Hampshire, Republican Governor John Sununu decline to run for Democratic Senator Maggie Hassan’s seat, making it likely that Hassan will win reelection.
It’s not as if every Democrat running this year is running a flawless campaign. We likely won’t get much detail on mistakes being made until after the election, but there has been a lot of criticism of Katie Hobbs, who is running in what should be a competitive Arizona race, and New York Governor Kathy Hochul, who has turned what should be an easy win into a competitive contest.
When donors see Democratic candidates in trouble, it's natural to want to step up and hit “donate.” After all, that’s all donors can really do. The problem is that if a campaign is badly run or the candidate isn’t connecting with voters or has a lousy message, more money won’t solve any of those problems.
***
When you take these factors into consideration, the field of candidates who are worth giving to narrows dramatically. Not only do you want to give to candidates who are running in competitive races, you want to be reasonably sure those candidates are going to run solid campaigns. And you want to avoid donating to candidates that have huge fundraising leads on their opponents. Finding candidates who fit all of these requirements is difficult.
And even if you do manage to donate in a theoretically optimal way, chances are you’re going to end up donating to at least a few candidates who lose. As frustrating as it is, your money can’t really help swing electoral outcomes in many cases. This is one reason that we consistently advise donors to prioritize giving to grassroots organizing groups in key states — because regardless of what happens in a particular election, these organizations have a long-term strategy to build power and win down the road.