2022 Generic Ballot / Recruitment / Fundraising / Ratings Megathread

[UncleSam]

Remington polled the generic congressional ballot in seven competitive US House districts:

https://punchbowl.news/wp-content/uploads/AAN-September-Polling-Memo.pdf

CA-10 (Harder) - 49% Republican/42% Democrat
FL-07 (Murphy) - 48% R/45% D
IA-03 (Axne) - 51% R/42% D
MI-08 (Slotkin) - 52% R/43% D
MI-11 (Stevens) - 51% R/45% D
VA-02 (Luria) - 49% R/46% D
WA-08 (Schrier) - 49% R/45% D
Average - 50% Republican/44% Democrat

Junk it. This poll is filled with loaded questions.

Q: Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? Liberal-led spending has already raised record price increases for working families. Spending $3.5 trillion for a liberal wish list will only make the rising costs families face even worse.

The loaded questions did come after the congressional top lines, but it’s effectively an internal poll for Rs. Shift it several points left for release / sampling bias and you’d probably have an accurate picture, but I don’t think priming bias was a huge issue with it.

[UncleSam]

People like to overrate the impact of ‘wasting’ money tbh. Lots of local donors will only give to local campaigns because voters are dumb. Running competitive candidates and fundraising reasonably are important even in races where you have a <5% chance to win.

[UncleSam]

Nunes is just gonna run in Harder’s district from the sounds of that article, which just is equivalent to losing Harder. Not sure how this is good for Ds but also the maps are far from finished

[UncleSam]

BTW is 2/3rds structurally out of reach for R's in the House or not?

There's a plausible scenario where Senate R's could get there (2022 midterm blowout, then D's barely hold onto the presidency in 2024 because Trump while R's win everything competitive downballot, then another midterm blowout in 2026).

In the scenario you are describing I don't think such a majority would be 'structurally' out of reach, but that's a pretty outlandish scenario. I think ~250-260 is likely the realistic seat ceiling in the current politcal climate for Rs (D ceiling is about the same though maybe slightly higher).

2/3 would require 290 seats, which is far enough out that I'd call it 'impossible'. It'd probably require Rs winning every district that Biden won by less than 10, more or less, which would be a crazy swing. I don't think every race downballot is suddenly going to become Mcauliffe vs. Youngkin.

[UncleSam]

It seems Marist, unlike Quinnipiac, wants to continue embarrassing themselves.

While Marist has always been D-leaning and I don’t really ‘trust’ this poll, it’s crazy to throw out a poll from a reputable pollster. Maybe Ds are just seeing some regression back towards the mean (as literally always happens) and simultaneously this sample is a bit D-friendly.

The tendency of this forum to dismiss polls that’s don’t align with their preconceptions rather than try to understand them is pretty silly.

[UncleSam]

It seems Marist, unlike Quinnipiac, wants to continue embarrassing themselves.

While Marist has always been D-leaning and I don’t really ‘trust’ this poll, it’s crazy to throw out a poll from a reputable pollster. Maybe Ds are just seeing some regression back towards the mean (as literally always happens) and simultaneously this sample is a bit D-friendly.

The tendency of this forum to dismiss polls that’s don’t align with their preconceptions rather than try to understand them is pretty silly.

Ah yes, the "reputable" Marist poll. Let's go back, shall we.

NBC/Marist

US: Biden +11 (D+7)
AZ: Tie (0)
FL: Biden +4 (D+7)
MI: Biden +8 (D+5)
NC: Biden +6 (D+7)
PA: Biden +5 (D+4)
WI: Biden +10 (D+9)

Average Error: 5.3
Average Partisan Error: D+5.3
538 Grade: A+

Nate Silver's favorite pollster for a long time.

That doesn't include their bullseyes in 2018, which included McCaskill +3 for MO Senate, Evers +10 for WI governor, Sinema +6 for AZ Senate, Blackburn +5 for TN Senate (Bredesen +2 in August, btw), among others, in a year where most people here believed the polls were accurate, proving that 2016 was a fluke for polling, and that 2020 polls would be mostly accurate.

More importantly, we just had elections a few weeks ago, where Biden's approval was -8 at the time of the election in both 538 and RCP's averages, and Democrats lost Virginia and narrowly won New Jersey, with incumbent and former incumbent Dem governors running and conservative "Trumplican" Republican candidates. Averaging the swings from 2020 in both states would suggest around R+8 for the country. D+5 is 13 points away from that, way outside any reasonable polling error, or any reasonable explanation for why Republican governor candidates would do so much better. Let's remember 2020 for the House was D+3. This poll is claiming Dems have a roughly equivalent or slightly larger lead today, right now, with Biden's approval being roughly the same as November 2nd, 2021. And, it would be one thing for a poll to claim a narrow Dem lead with lots of undecideds, say 42% to 40%. But for this poll to claim 46% would vote Dem already, with 13% undecided, says a lot of things in my mind about the poll, but none of which are that the poll is accurate.

If we had polls claiming R's leading in 2018, everyone here would be laughing them off. And they should've been laughed off, because we knew that was nowhere near reality based on multiple indicators. People should do the same here even if they want to believe it.

Sure, Marist has a history of D bias. But it’s still a professional pollster with published methodology, and so the results are useful even if maybe we should tilt things a few points right in our heads from where they say the race is.

It’s useful to put in the average against R bias pollsters to cancel them out, and it’s useful to know that there’s been some reversion to the mean since Rs swept the 2021 elections. That’s all I’m saying.

[UncleSam]

Ya not gonna lie I just assume that GCB polls overestimate Ds by 5 or so. They used to be a pretty good snapshot but nowadays most GCB polling either polls US Adults or at best RVs, both of which are significantly more Democratic than LVs are or than the electorate has proven to be in recent years. When Ds next overperform their GCB average I will reconsider my stance.

[UncleSam]

Inside Elections came out with their full Senate ratings:
https://www.insideelections.com/ratings/senate/2022-senate-ratings-january-7-2022

AZ: Tossup
FL: Likely R
GA: Tossup
NH: Tilt D
NV: Tossup
NC: Lean R
PA: Tilt R
WI: Lean R

Everything else is safe for the incumbent party.

This looks pretty reasonable, though I think I’d put AZ in the Tilt D category currently. GA maybe as well.

[UncleSam]

Complete Disaster for Democrats incoming...
https://twitter.com/PollProjectUSA/status/1493999422895624199

Harris down in her own Home State (38/46), President Biden barely breaking even. This is CA folks!

It’s a little odd to me how many people disapprove of Feinstein simply because she is old.

[UncleSam]

I also think a lot will depend on individual GOP candidates, the increasing salience of abortion after red state legislatures make laws punishing women....a lot of people haven't tuned into everything just yet.

I love how quickly you guys switched from "the increasing salience of abortion" to "the increasing salience of abortion after red state legislatures make laws punishing women" and from "after people hear about the Roe v. Wade leak" to "a lot of people haven’t tuned in to everything just yet" after post-leak polling & primary results didn’t produce your desired result and didn’t confirm your preconceived narrative. You couldn’t ask for a better (implicit) admission that the Democratic narrative about abortion dramatically changing the state of the race was always just blatant wishful thinking akin to the 'low-propensity Trump voters will stay home in 2022' (which you were also very vocal about).

Throw in the extremely predictable "candidate quality" takes...

it seems like GOP is going to win generic races and probably blow some big swing state races with horrible candidates.

and some poll 'unskewing'...

Looks like R+4 not 7

and you have your perfect recipe for some delicious coping mechanism.

You gotta be kidding if you think some candidates that take Todd Akin level stances on abortion in statewides races in PA, MI, NV won't cost the GOP some seats. I said GOP is going to take the House minus something completely unforeseen. But laws that have the support of 27% of the country will
hurt the party enacting them, not unlike the way the far left activists nearly poisoned Dems into losing both the presidency and the House in 2020.

And yes candidate quality matters, Mastriano is not Glenn Youngkin. As far as state laws go, don't rule out something completely ridiculous coming after the decision is handed down. Roe being overturned is different than previous years because it was always just a hypothetical.

The problem is that 95% of R candidates who have yet to be elected are declared ‘weak’ by democratic posters on this board. Glenn Youngkin being a recent example. I remember the day after he won the primary everyone talking about how his nomination clinched the win for McAullife. It’s hard to take candidate quality takes seriously after that.

[UncleSam]

New NBC poll has GCB tied at 46-46

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2022-election/support-abortion-rights-hits-new-high-midterm-outlook-stays-mostly-unc-rcna28869

Roe is the only thing that can save Dems, Biden's approval is trash but a lot of younger people who disapprove are repelled by the idea of SCOTUS removing a constitutional right. If Dems can keep the GCB close then perhaps the GOP will lose a bunch of swing state races due to bad candidates.

Anecdotal evidence is notoriously not worth much, but I will say that I have a fair number of younger, left-wing friends who simultaneously think the Democratic party leadership (both Biden and the Congress) is woefully out of touch with the problems they face, and who also would never vote for the Republican party under any circumstances. Finding a way to turn out those sorts of young voters - edit: while also not alienating other persuadable voters - is going to be very important for any Dem who wants to hold on in a difficult national electoral environment.

Yeah, I think the best realistic Dem scenario is all of the GOP Senate candidates flame out due to abortion stances and they pick up 2 seats while losing House but keeping GOP to a 12 seat or so gain. It is not going to be a R+7 vote like VA and NJ suggested, both had considerably better candidates than anything GOP will offer in swing states in 2022. I think the lack of rape exceptions on abortion is going to trip up some Rs, this position is supported by a fringe 5-10% of the country and as toxic as defunding the police.

Lol D+2 in the senate and R+12 in the house is very optimistic for Ds. That’s basically an R+1-2 vote.

[UncleSam]

New NBC poll has GCB tied at 46-46

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2022-election/support-abortion-rights-hits-new-high-midterm-outlook-stays-mostly-unc-rcna28869

Roe is the only thing that can save Dems, Biden's approval is trash but a lot of younger people who disapprove are repelled by the idea of SCOTUS removing a constitutional right. If Dems can keep the GCB close then perhaps the GOP will lose a bunch of swing state races due to bad candidates.

Anecdotal evidence is notoriously not worth much, but I will say that I have a fair number of younger, left-wing friends who simultaneously think the Democratic party leadership (both Biden and the Congress) is woefully out of touch with the problems they face, and who also would never vote for the Republican party under any circumstances. Finding a way to turn out those sorts of young voters - edit: while also not alienating other persuadable voters - is going to be very important for any Dem who wants to hold on in a difficult national electoral environment.

Yeah, I think the best realistic Dem scenario is all of the GOP Senate candidates flame out due to abortion stances and they pick up 2 seats while losing House but keeping GOP to a 12 seat or so gain. It is not going to be a R+7 vote like VA and NJ suggested, both had considerably better candidates than anything GOP will offer in swing states in 2022. I think the lack of rape exceptions on abortion is going to trip up some Rs, this position is supported by a fringe 5-10% of the country and as toxic as defunding the police.

Lol D+2 in the senate and R+12 in the house is very optimistic for Ds. That’s basically an R+1-2 vote.

The only way you get D+2 in the Senate is if Dems win the popular vote by at least as much as they did in 2020.

Note the BEST realistic scenario part of what I said, not the median outcome. The median outcome is prob 20-28 R gains in house and 2 in Senate.

Gotcha, misread ‘best’ as ‘most realistic’. That makes a lot more sense lol and I’d say I agree.

[UncleSam]

https://twitter.com/Peoples_Pundit/status/1527422590888951827

Enough said.

Because Rich Baris's word is infallible?  I had never heard of this guy until a couple weeks ago and my little bit of googling shows he is a right wing internet troll who's firm must do some polling but I couldn't find any. Not listed on 538 as far as I can tell.

If you must obsess over polling follow the averages. The Marists and Rasmussen's will cancel each other out.

Isn't it weird how this right-wing guy has a far more accurate history with his polling than 538's averages, Marist, NBC, ABC/WaPo, Ipsos, Yougov, Quinnipiac, (I can go on) or any of the other legacy "trusted" outlets out there?

You’re right that Marist / NBC / WaPo have been off for years (always towards Dems), but Quinnipiac has been much more solid at actively updating their methodology and generally being pretty accurate (still have missed a bit but that’s any polling company). Also worth noting Quinnipiac has the generic ballot at R+5 so yes I am skeptical of Marist and NBC to put it lightly.

[UncleSam]

Definitely a bump for Dems with the abortion ruling. Question is how sustained the bump will be.

Four months used to be a very short time in politics. Now it’s like 25 news cycles.

[UncleSam]

Another poll showing a Dem bump post-Roe. Their last poll here was D+4 so this is a movement of 3 points which is similar to what other polls have shown.

https://twitter.com/stella2020woof/status/1541810356187693056?s=20&t=u9tyjbw...

What was their prior result (not margin, but actual numbers)? Curious as to whether Dems are gaining support or Rs are losing it (or a combination).

[UncleSam]

Another poll showing a Dem bump post-Roe. Their last poll here was D+4 so this is a movement of 3 points which is similar to what other polls have shown.

https://twitter.com/stella2020woof/status/1541810356187693056?s=20&t=u9tyjbw...

What was their prior result (not margin, but actual numbers)? Curious as to whether Dems are gaining support or Rs are losing it (or a combination).

I believe 43-39 is what's being referenced.

Got it, so good news for Dems that their support is actually increasing (rather than just GOP support falling).

[UncleSam]

Meanwhile back in reality, Trafalgar has R+9 on the generic ballot

https://www.thetrafalgargroup.org/news/nat-generic-ballot-0627/

What was the survey period for this? It just says ‘June’…and I believe that this wa what the generic ballot was among LV for November as of a week or two ago. Today is a completely different story, however.

[UncleSam]

Meanwhile back in reality, Trafalgar has R+9 on the generic ballot

https://www.thetrafalgargroup.org/news/nat-generic-ballot-0627/

What was the survey period for this? It just says ‘June’…and I believe that this wa what the generic ballot was among LV for November as of a week or two ago. Today is a completely different story, however.

It was June 20-23.

So this was conducted before the single biggest political development of the year (most likely). Kinda makes it out of date.

[UncleSam]

voters think state legislatures are the best forums to decide abortion policy (44%) followed by Congress (31%) and the Court (25%)

sure, in theory. but this is not reality, when state legislatures are going extreme and banning it outright or banning it without any exceptions for rape, incest, etc.

leaving it up to the states, if the states were actually sensible about it, is a hypothetical good idea. but it's not what it's actually happening when you leave it up to them.

Problem is that what you consider ‘sensible’ doesn’t align with a big chunk of the countrys’ position on this issue.

I think the biggest takeaway from this poll is that people don’t want the court to just go back and forth on legislating this. People want Congress to come to an agreement on guidelines for when abortion must and must not be legal.

If Dems would get their sh**t together and support the Collins-Murkowski legislation that’s already been proposed publicly, they could really turn the screws on Rs and make some serious progress on this issue. It’s possible that they could even convince one or both of them to support temporarily removing the filibuster on issues of civil rights, and use that as a tool to force McConnell to the table.

Instead Dems won’t accept anything other than the extreme legislation proposed by Klobuchar that very little of the country agrees with. The vast majority of Americans do not want third trimester abortion to be legal outside of very rare exception cases, and most want us to move to the European standard. Dems could force this to become the main topic of discussion for months on end if they pursue a legitimately popular platform on this topic all summer long, and use that as a cudgel against Rs in November to boot. Plus, if you win and force concessions from McConnell, then R base voters will be angry at their candidates and Biden’s approvals should rise.

It’s such an obvious move that it’s honestly pathetic that Dems can’t just get their sh**t together and accept that third trimester abortion is just not popular. People basically perceive it as murdering babies, largely because that’s basically what it is. It’s also a minuscule portion of actual abortions - from a practical perspective, ensuring that abortion is legal through 15 weeks and legal always during exceptional cases will cover 98-99% of abortions currently performed. The last 1-2% of abortions I don’t even personally agree with being legal, and even if I did it’s not a political hill worth dying on.

[UncleSam]

voters think state legislatures are the best forums to decide abortion policy (44%) followed by Congress (31%) and the Court (25%)

sure, in theory. but this is not reality, when state legislatures are going extreme and banning it outright or banning it without any exceptions for rape, incest, etc.

leaving it up to the states, if the states were actually sensible about it, is a hypothetical good idea. but it's not what it's actually happening when you leave it up to them.

Problem is that what you consider ‘sensible’ doesn’t align with a big chunk of the countrys’ position on this issue.

I think the biggest takeaway from this poll is that people don’t want the court to just go back and forth on legislating this. People want Congress to come to an agreement on guidelines for when abortion must and must not be legal.

If Dems would get their sh**t together and support the Collins-Murkowski legislation that’s already been proposed publicly, they could really turn the screws on Rs and make some serious progress on this issue. It’s possible that they could even convince one or both of them to support temporarily removing the filibuster on issues of civil rights, and use that as a tool to force McConnell to the table.

Instead Dems won’t accept anything other than the extreme legislation proposed by Klobuchar that very little of the country agrees with. The vast majority of Americans do not want third trimester abortion to be legal outside of very rare exception cases, and most want us to move to the European standard. Dems could force this to become the main topic of discussion for months on end if they pursue a legitimately popular platform on this topic all summer long, and use that as a cudgel against Rs in November to boot. Plus, if you win and force concessions from McConnell, then R base voters will be angry at their candidates and Biden’s approvals should rise.

It’s such an obvious move that it’s honestly pathetic that Dems can’t just get their sh**t together and accept that third trimester abortion is just not popular. People basically perceive it as murdering babies, largely because that’s basically what it is. It’s also a minuscule portion of actual abortions - from a practical perspective, ensuring that abortion is legal through 15 weeks and legal always during exceptional cases will cover 98-99% of abortions currently performed. The last 1-2% of abortions I don’t even personally agree with being legal, and even if I did it’s not a political hill worth dying on.

You're trying very hard to act as if Rs somehow have a leg up on this discussion when they do not. Voters are generally with Democrats on this issue. Most voters were fine with Roe v Wade being the law of the land.

If you honestly believe Murkowski or Collins would ever help blow up the filibuster with Ds then I don't know what to say honestly.

You’re willfully ignoring your own poll that you posted in this very quote block. Americans clearly do not support the Klobuchar law in comparison to the Collins-Murkowski law. Americans also clearly do not support Rs position, and id argue that Dems are closer to the cente Ron this issue than Rs are.

So I guess I’m confused how you interpreted anything I said as Rs having the leg up. What I said was that as long as both sides are too extreme for the average voter, it is hard to make much progress in congress. If Dems were to shift to the center even just a bit on abortion, it seems much more likely they could enact real and lasting change. Additionally, they’d be more in line with the views of the vast majority of the country - the very poll you cited shows that only roughly 10-15% of people support the Dem position of ‘abortion on demand’ (a literal political flyer with those words has been passed around for several weeks in the Seattle area, so I am well aware of what the Dem position is).

If your party is closer to the center than your opponents are AND you need to act quickly before a bunch of states start taking away crucial civil rights AND you need a political win…seems like a no-brained to abandon partisan efforts at codifying abortion legislation and to instead reach out to whatever pro-choice Rs you can find and play as nice as possible with them.

As to your last point…if Collins writes her own bill, if that bill is broadly popular, if that bill would literally save womens’ lives who she had a hand in harming, and if you actually sincerely try to appeal to her, I do think that Susan Collins would threaten Mitch McConnell behind closed doors to either stop blocking her legislation or she will blow up the filibuster specifically for civil rights legislation. Obviously neither she nor Murkowski would ever do anything to help Dems pass BBB or something like that, but if it is their own bill that Dems we’re just lending support too and which Dems then whispered in their ear ‘you know if you even threatened to go nuclear over this I’ll bet the other Rs would listen…’ then I think Dems could score a real win here.

Instead Dems are focused on acting holier-than-thou and appealing to their base, when they are in a perfect position to help millions of women nationwide right now. The fact that it’s a smart political play that could help them in the upcoming elections for a multitude of reasons is just a cherry on top.

But by all means, if Dems just want to keep trying to shove a partisan bill down peoples’ throats then they won’t look any better than Rs on this, and will probably just get clobbered in November regardless of Dobbs. Which will just embolden Rs to try to crack down even more on abortion rights. It’s basically what I’ve come to expect from Democrats at this point: meaningless purity tests and platitudes uttered to appeal to insane activists who largely hate and despise this country rather than actually following through on their promises and helping working class Americans.

[UncleSam]

This is a typical midterm, Dems will lose big time, the only question is when do the polls move in the GOP favor like they did for 2014.

Before this Spring I would have agreed with this, but things have changed.  A typical midterm features high motivation by the party out of power and lower motivation by the party in power.  The overturning of Roe v Wade, by all indications, is amping up Democratic energy to a competitive level.  This is not to say that the normal midterm advantage for the out party has been wiped out; that is unlikely.  But it's fair to say that it looks like the advantage will be considerably reduced from a typical midterm.

I agree with the idea that D turnout will be higher than it otherwise would have been before Dobbs, but the way these polls are measuring it is straight up stupid. Sentences like “72% of Dems are more likely to vote while only 30% of R’s are more likely to vote after the decision” are extremely misleading. For example, if those every single one of those 72% of Dems was planning on not voting, then yes it’s huge. If all 72% were already voting, then it’s absolutely meaningless. We should be getting 2x2 tables of voting intention before decision and voting intention after decision by party in order to measure anything.

If I had to guess, I’d say 70-80% of those “more likely to vote” Dems were always going to vote, and 90+% of the “more likely to vote” R’s were always going to vote, so that’ll give D’s some comparative turnout boost. But there’s a lot more R’s in the no effect category and many will be voting

Great points, and one addendum: ‘more likely’ =\= ‘likely’ (to vote). Someone could have been certain not to vote before Dobbs, and now maybe just considering bothering.

We really need polls of voting intention per- and post-Dobbs, as you mention. What we have thus far has been useless.

[UncleSam]

Fwiw, nate Cohn says the undecided in the nyt poll are very anti Biden and working class

Only 23% approve of Biden

If that is true that is great news for Republicans.

Idk, ‘working class’ is a big group, it kinda sounds more like Nate Cohn is trying to cover his ass because he thinks Rs will do better than conventional polling would suggest once again.

[UncleSam]

Money won't be the problem for Dems. It's how they will use it.

It's hard to analyze money though because while in some cases it may be genuine enthusiasm, that enthusiasm could just be coming from already very reliable voters or a few very wealthy folks. It may also be genuine enthusiasm on teh ground that causes them to get very solid turnout though. We just don't know.

These House Dems have the money to really run get out a message that will affect how their constituents see them optically, and many will have to make choices about how closely they want to tie themselves to Biden, how much they want to reference Trump, and how progressive or moderate they wish to be. In hindsight, I'm sure a lot of us will say many didn't spend their money well, but as of now it's hard to say what the best use is.

I also wonder if for some of these Rs, the lack of money is a good thing in the sense if they had tons of money, they may use it on stuff that ends up causing them more problems for them cause by spending money and taking a stand about who they are, they may either tie themselves too close to or not enough with Trump. Someone like Majewski is prolly better unknown and just seen as a generic R rather than making ads himself.

I wouldn’t over-analyze it. More money is pretty much always a good thing in politics. However, there are rapid diminishing returns to a large campaign warchest.

Basically, 95% of the impact of fundraising for political candidates comes from the first ~1 million (for house) and ~5 million (for senate), dependent on the state / district of course (some are more and some less expensive so adjust those numbers accordingly). That first bit of money allows a candidate to build a dedicated team, run ads, and campaign consistently. Further spending past that has logistically diminishing returns.

For example, a 17 to 6 M advantage for Warnock in GA is not really something I think will shift the race much / at all - Warnock can run some extra ads, put up some extra flyers, but probably will get only a minimal extra boost from it that would only matter in the closest of races. Comparatively, Spanbergers’ opponent only having 250k to her 5M is a pretty big advantage, as that seriously crippled her opponents’ ability to campaign and get their message out.

So ya, don’t obsess on fundraising, but I wouldn’t overanalyze it either.

[UncleSam]

Are Republicans even trying?

https://twitter.com/JoelWeingart_/status/1548692194030194689

Please pin this for November when Rs win 2 or 3 of these races. Fundraising barely matters statewide, having a 2-1 spending advantage means almost nothing in a house district when your opponent is running a real campaign. There’s just not that much to do with all that extra money.

[UncleSam]

Fundraising numbers used to be a good publicly-accessible metric for how much support various candidates have amongst their own partys’ establishment. The problem is that as Democrats have garnered more and more of the college white vote, they’ve also begun massively outspending Rs on the campaign trail (especially since 2016), particularly at the senate level. We have seen the results amongst a more partisan, online-oriented electorate (where it is cheaper than ever before to get your message out), and they’ve been…not great.

Dems lit hundreds of millions on fire in senate races they didn’t come within even eight points of winning in 2020 (see: SC, ME, KY, etc.).

The reality is that while in-state dollars matter a little, out-of-state fundraising can often be actively counterproductive due to opening up an easy new line of attack for your opponent. And Dems have way more mega donors than Rs do these days, which is not translating to results in many places.

So no, the fundraising numbers don’t really matter all that much - we’ve seen this show before. If you could dig up in-state fundraising dollars though, that would be way more interesting.