Harrison and McGrath lead April's ActBlue donations

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

You hate to see it.

https://twitter.com/rpyers/status/1263187811198308353

[Nyvin]

*rolls eyes*

[Non Swing Voter]

UMC Democrats don't even know what to do with their money at this point.

[GlobeSoc]

mitch mcconnell's seat is closer than appears, tilt tossup, closer to lean tossup than tossup tossup

[Mr.Bakari-Sellers]

McGrath will win. Harrison probably loses. But if Dems passes DC statehood, then Mfume and Donna Edward's will run for seats

[ON Progressive]

[TrendsareUsuallyReal]

Oh nice. I love seeing Democrats give 15x more money to Kentucky than to Georgia

[Lognog]

McGrath will win. Harrison probably loses. But if Dems passes DC statehood, then Mfume and Donna Edward's will run for seats

McConnell is not going anywhere that seat is safe R

[Democrats Hate Leftists More Than Predators]

****ing idiots.

[Roblox]

Insert despair face meme.

[Arson Plus]

Atleast in SC, Smith did pretty well after Dems triaged him

[Mr.Bakari-Sellers]

Ds are in alot better position to win AZ, CO, GA, KS, KY, MT than IA, ME and NC, where moderate Rs are. Tillis can be described as a moderate, as well as Collins and Ernst

[You Don’t Mess With The Zohran]

Urgh. F**king Karen's.

[RussFeingoldWasRobbed]

McGrath needs to drop out. NOW. We've lit enough money on fire as it is

[dotard]

Of course they did.

[Mr.Bakari-Sellers]

Bullock and Bollier and Gideon are the paths to 51 seats to the majority, not Harrison.

[Yoda]

I really wish that the vast majority of democrats would stop giving their $$ to such long shot senate races and the almost-safe D races like CO and AZ. It's just a waste of money. Your money can do the most good if given to dem candidates in close races. I personally throw my extra bucks to Gideon and Cunningham. I hate McConnell as much as the next democrat, but if you defeat two republican senators from among Tillis, Collins, Ernst or Daines, etc chances are that McConnell will be minority leader in the next Congress. I hate the lack of strategic thinking.

[Blair]

I appear to be swimming against the tide but I'm not too worried about this. Money doesn't yet appear to be a problem for the democrats even in a covid cycle.

These races always draw in money- McGrath because of her 2018 run, backstory & the toxicity of Moscow Mitch and Jamie Harrison because of Lindsay Graham & because Harrison is a talented politician. They're both running good digital & media campaigns.

Besides I'm not sure it's fair or reasonable to expect small dollar donors to donate based on electoral odds- people generally want to give money to a candiaite who inspires them or who offers a chance to kick someone they hate.

It's the job of political campaigns to generate more money & more attention and it's the job of the DSCC to pump money into these races.

Sure I'd love most of these people to donate to at-risk house candidates or even statehouse people... but it's not going to happen. Ordinary people (yes even those who donate money to campaigns) don't have the same thought process as us.

Oh nice. I love seeing Democrats give 15x more money to Kentucky than to Georgia

Again surely the answer is to get better candidates? In Georgia we currently have a former congressional staffer, a random vicar & Senator Palpatine's son as the frontrunners...

[You Don’t Mess With The Zohran]

I appear to be swimming against the tide but I'm not too worried about this. Money doesn't yet appear to be a problem for the democrats even in a covid cycle.

These races always draw in money- McGrath because of her 2018 run, backstory & the toxicity of Moscow Mitch and Jamie Harrison because of Lindsay Graham & because Harrison is a talented politician. They're both running good digital & media campaigns.

Besides I'm not sure it's fair or reasonable to expect small dollar donors to donate based on electoral odds- people generally want to give money to a candiaite who inspires them or who offers a chance to kick someone they hate.

It's the job of political campaigns to generate more money & more attention and it's the job of the DSCC to pump money into these races.

Sure I'd love most of these people to donate to at-risk house candidates or even statehouse people... but it's not going to happen. Ordinary people (yes even those who donate money to campaigns) don't have the same thought process as us.

Oh nice. I love seeing Democrats give 15x more money to Kentucky than to Georgia

Again surely the answer is to get better candidates? In Georgia we currently have a former congressional staffer, a random vicar & Senator Palpatine's son as the frontrunners...

IMO the DSCC shouldn't be touching these races. I guess I can see the logic (and it's worth remembering that people were thinking the same about Beto before results came in), but it's still annoying. I guess the best answer is "find more appealing candidates", though.

[For Trump, everything. For immigrants, the law]

It’ll be a lot of fun seeing Daines, Perdue, and Tillis very narrowly win and Republicans hold the Senate so that McGrath can lose by 18 (instead of 21) and Harrison by 12 (instead of 15.)

[KaiserDave]

It’ll be a lot of fun seeing Daines, Perdue, and Tillis very narrowly win and Republicans hold the Senate so that McGrath can lose by 18 (instead of 21) and Harrison by 12 (instead of 15.)

Exactly.

Although I donated to Bullock (mostly because I was sick and tired of Steve Daines ads on YT)

[Virginiá]

The assumption that this money would otherwise go to other battleground Senate races is not necessarily accurate.

And even if it did, would it make a difference? Oh whoopdeedoo, some candidates have more money to blow on overpaid consultants and multi-million dollar ad buys to bomb apathetic voters' television screens, just in time for them to flip the channel out of annoyance of yet another political ad.

The idea that those extra dollars would play a pivotal role seems about as likely to me as McGrath or Harrison winning. Not necessarily a testament to money being ineffective so much as candidates plowing most of it into the same useless strategies and services that rarely make a difference.

[Co-Chair Bagel23]

The assumption that this money would otherwise go to other battleground Senate races is not necessarily accurate.

And even if it did, would it make a difference? Oh whoopdeedoo, some candidates have more money to blow on overpaid consultants and multi-million dollar ad buys to bomb apathetic voters' television screens, just in time for them to flip the channel out of annoyance of yet another political ad.

The idea that those extra dollars would play a pivotal role seems about as likely to me as McGrath or Harrison winning. Not necessarily a testament to money being ineffective so much as candidates plowing most of it into the same useless strategies and services that rarely make a difference.

Ugh no, *cue eyroll* it is way more than that. Build new infrastructure in places like KS which will be up and coming in future years, as well as add onto infrastructure in places like GA.

[Virginiá]

Ugh no, *cue eyroll* it is way more than that. Build new infrastructure in places like KS which will be up and coming in future years, as well as add onto infrastructure in places like GA.

Is it? It's only recently that Democrats have focused more on actual organizing, and even then, it's more of a focus among actual activists than party organizations. You still see super PACs and other groups dropping hundreds of millions of dollars collectively in federal elections on ads, and an endless parade of consultants and operatives feigning concern over why the parties aren't dumping millions in ads during the summer, as if voters will remember some TV ad they saw months before the election. Literally on this forum are people still thinking blasting the airwaves is a game-changer. Come on already.

The majority of that infrastructure is going to be people pulled into activism the same way so many before them have: outrage. All that money these campaigns raise gets burned the same year. It's not like some pool of funding that keeps general political operations going well into the future. And for campaigns recruiting new volunteers... In a presidential year, I'd say kudos for that often belongs more to the presidential campaigns than downballot campaigns. There is a reason presidential elections are the highest turnout elections we have. People just care far more about the executive than any other.

[Blair]

I appear to be swimming against the tide but I'm not too worried about this. Money doesn't yet appear to be a problem for the democrats even in a covid cycle.

These races always draw in money- McGrath because of her 2018 run, backstory & the toxicity of Moscow Mitch and Jamie Harrison because of Lindsay Graham & because Harrison is a talented politician. They're both running good digital & media campaigns.

Besides I'm not sure it's fair or reasonable to expect small dollar donors to donate based on electoral odds- people generally want to give money to a candiaite who inspires them or who offers a chance to kick someone they hate.

It's the job of political campaigns to generate more money & more attention and it's the job of the DSCC to pump money into these races.

Sure I'd love most of these people to donate to at-risk house candidates or even statehouse people... but it's not going to happen. Ordinary people (yes even those who donate money to campaigns) don't have the same thought process as us.

Oh nice. I love seeing Democrats give 15x more money to Kentucky than to Georgia

Again surely the answer is to get better candidates? In Georgia we currently have a former congressional staffer, a random vicar & Senator Palpatine's son as the frontrunners...

IMO the DSCC shouldn't be touching these races. I guess I can see the logic (and it's worth remembering that people were thinking the same about Beto before results came in), but it's still annoying. I guess the best answer is "find more appealing candidates", though.

Yeah sorry I was being unclear- I meant it's the job of thr DSCC to pump money into Georgia, Maine, North Carolina etc (which it already has- the ad buy in North Carolina is irrc something like £30 million)