In the midterm ad wars, Republicans are spending more to get less

Graeme Sloan/Bloomberg/Getty Images

Republicans are spending hundreds of millions of dollars on advertising in battleground Senate races as they scramble to defend increasingly competitive GOP seats in the final stretch of the midterms.

But when it comes to how far they can stretch a dollar, they’re effectively paying premium prices at Whole Foods while Democrats are shopping deals at Costco.

Across nine of the most competitive Senate races last month, Republicans cumulatively outspent Democrats on broadcast TV ads by nearly 100% more, $233 million to $121 million, according to AdImpact data, but only saw about 40% more rating points.

The disparity comes down to a difference in strategy. Republicans are relying heavily on outside groups, like super PACs, that pay elevated rates for ads and are making big buys late in the campaign, when inventory is stretched.

By contrast, Democrats are taking advantage of discounted rates for candidates and earlier, less expensive reservations.

At this stage in the game, Republicans are spending more to get less, which means the “shock and awe” of their massive dollar advantage isn’t necessarily translating to an actual impact on the ground, according to veteran Republican strategist John Thomas.

A better metric, he said, is to consider the gross rating points, or GRPs, a unit advertisers use to measure the reach and frequency of an ad campaign, independent of how much was paid for it.

In those nine races – where outside groups accounted for about 9 in 10 Republican ad dollars, compared to about half for Democrats – Democrats paid $201 per GRP, while Republicans paid about $274.

In some races in September, Democrats actually outpaced Republicans in GRPs, completely overcoming their spending edge.

In North Carolina, for example, Republicans outspent Democrats by about $17 million to $14 million on TV ads in September, as former Gov. Roy Cooper poses a major threat to former RNC Chair Michael Whatley and the GOP chances of holding Sen. Thom Tillis’ seat. But Democrats got more than 71,000 GRPs from their spend while Republicans got about 58,000. And at the beginning of October – recognizing the costly, difficult road ahead for Whatley – Republicans actually began cutting their remaining ad bookings by about $15 million.

Democrats were also outspent last month by Republicans in Maine by about 32%, another premier battleground race where former state Sen. Troy Jackson is looking to unseat veteran GOP incumbent Sen. Susan Collins, who has received major backing from national Republicans. But here, again, despite being outspent, Democrats got 6% more GRPs for their money.

Even in Texas – where Democrats were blasted by Republican ad money in September, outspent more than 4 times over – the GRP gap was proportionally much smaller. Republicans got only 2.6 times more GRPs.

A GOP super PAC had to spend more than $22 million to air its top ad , touting Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton ’s record as a prosecutor, about 15,500 times in September. Democratic Senate nominee James Talarico ’s campaign spent a little under $4 million to air its most aired ad , casting Paxton as “the most corrupt politician in Texas,” about 8,000 times. That amounts to less than one-fifth the spending for about half the airtime.

Lauren French, communications director for Senate Majority PAC, a leading Democratic super PAC, also emphasized that buying TV late in the cycle becomes exorbitantly expensive. “The nitty-gritty of campaigning is that not all ad space costs the same,” she said.

“If you are buying something in February, it’s going to be a lot cheaper, and you’re going to get a lot more bang for your buck than, say, if you’re buying it in September. So that’s why you’re seeing this huge disconnect between what Republicans are paying and what Democrats are paying on average in some of these races,” French said.

In seven of the top nine Senate races by total TV and radio ad spending in September, Democrats paid less per GRP than Republicans.

The two exceptions were New Hampshire and Alaska. Confident in their nominees, Republicans were able to secure comparable or better rates in both states’ key markets. In New Hampshire, this was reinforced by Republicans allocating relatively more to cheaper secondary markets.

“Broadly speaking, Republicans are using their money pretty ineffectively, and public polling is saying that people are not seeing their ads as much as one would expect. So, by that definition alone, some of their money is being set on fire. We are being outspent in a lot of these states, which means we have to make more strategic decisions,” French said.

The road to the 2026 midterms starts now

Each week, Aaron Blake cuts through the political noise with sharp analysis of the races, candidates and trends that could decide control of Congress. Sign up for 20/26 Vision, a weekly newsletter focusing on this year’s midterms .

Thomas said that Texas, in particular, was emblematic of this effect, with GOP outside groups mounting an urgent rescue effort for Paxton and pouring money into the state. He noted that Paxton allies had taken to buying ad time on national NFL broadcasts because local markets had grown so crowded. That’s why people across the country are seeing Texas Senate ads in games that don’t include the Dallas Cowboys or Houston Texans.

“In some cases, because the commercial rate is so high in a local, like a Houston spot, it actually sometimes can be cheaper to buy a national spot,” he said.

Democrats’ efficiency advantage might have been much greater, given their candidates have consistently raised more money their Republican opponents on a campaign-to-campaign basis, allowing them to spend more directly on their own ads at cheap rates.

But thanks to a recent Supreme Court ruling , for the first time this year, national party committees can take advantage of candidate ad rates through coordinated buys.

This means well-funded national committees like the National Republican Congressional Committee or National Republican Senate Committee can team up with candidates – like Mike Rogers in Michigan or Sen. Jon Husted in Ohio – and foot the bill for pricey ad campaigns while getting candidate discounts.

The expansion of coordinated buying has allowed Republicans to blunt the Democratic candidate fundraising advantage. Democrats can do the same, but the GOP has taken to it far more aggressively: In September, GOP advertisers spent more than $30 million on coordinated ad buys, compared to about $5 million from Democrats.

Outside groups like super PACs still play a dominant role, however, due to their unique ability to accept unlimited donations and make unlimited expenditures.

“The money is actually very, very inefficient, but the benefit, even with the inefficiency of a super PAC, is one or two people can cut checks and fund the whole thing,” Thomas said.

格雷姆·斯隆/彭博社/盖蒂图片社

在中期选举的最后阶段，共和党人正竭尽全力保住竞争日益激烈的共和党席位，为此他们在关键的参议院竞选中投入了数亿美元的广告费用。

但说到如何精打细算，他们在全食超市实际上是在支付高价，而民主党人则在好市多购物。

根据 AdImpact 的数据，在上个月竞争最激烈的九场参议院竞选中，共和党人在电视广告上的累计支出比民主党人高出近 100%，达到 2.33 亿美元，而民主党人仅为 1.21 亿美元，但共和党人的收视率只比民主党人高出约 40%。

造成这种差异的原因在于策略的不同。共和党严重依赖外部团体，例如超级政治行动委员会（Super PACs），这些团体支付高价广告费，并在竞选后期广告资源紧张时进行大手笔投放。

相比之下，民主党人则利用候选人折扣价和更早、更便宜的预订方式。

资深共和党策略师约翰·托马斯表示，在现阶段，共和党人花费更多却收获更少，这意味着他们巨大的资金优势所带来的“震撼和威慑”效果并不一定能转化为实际的影响。

他表示，更好的衡量标准是考虑总收视点（GRP），这是广告商用来衡量广告活动覆盖范围和频次的单位，与广告费用无关。

在这九场竞选中，共和党的广告支出中约有十分之九来自外部团体，而民主党的广告支出中约有一半来自外部团体。民主党每获得一个总收视点（GRP）支付 201 美元，而共和党每获得一个总收视点（GRP）支付约 274 美元。

在9月份的一些选举中，民主党在地区平均收视率（GRP）上实际上超过了共和党，完全抵消了共和党在支出方面的优势。

例如，在北卡罗来纳州，共和党9月份在电视广告上的支出比民主党高出约1700万美元，而民主党为1400万美元。这是因为前州长罗伊·库珀对前共和党全国委员会主席迈克尔·沃特利以及共和党保住参议员汤姆·蒂利斯席位的机会构成了重大威胁。但民主党的广告支出获得了超过7.1万的总收视点（GRP），而共和党仅获得了约5.8万。10月初，共和党意识到沃特利未来的道路充满艰辛且代价高昂，于是开始削减剩余的广告预算，削减幅度约为1500万美元。

上个月，民主党在缅因州的竞选支出也比共和党少了约32%。缅因州是另一个竞争激烈的摇摆州，前州参议员特洛伊·杰克逊正试图挑战资深共和党现任参议员苏珊·柯林斯，后者获得了共和党全国委员会的大力支持。但即便如此，民主党在竞选支出上仍然比共和党少，但他们的投入却获得了高出6%的地区收视率。

即使在德克萨斯州——民主党在9月份遭到共和党巨额广告攻势，支出超过民主党四倍多——但共和党与民主党之间的GRP差距也相对较小。共和党获得的GRP仅为民主党的2.6倍。

共和党超级政治行动委员会花费超过2200万美元，在9月份播放了约15500次其重点广告，吹捧德克萨斯州总检察长肯·帕克斯顿的检察官政绩。相比之下，民主党参议员候选人詹姆斯·塔拉里科的竞选团队花费不到400万美元，播放了约8000次其播放次数最多的广告，将帕克斯顿描绘成“德克萨斯州最腐败的政客”。这意味着塔拉里科的广告支出不到前者的五分之一，播放时长却只有前者的一半左右。

民主党主要超级政治行动委员会“参议院多数党政治行动委员会”（Senate Majority PAC）的通讯主管劳伦·弗伦奇也强调，在竞选后期购买电视广告位会变得异常昂贵。“竞选的本质在于，并非所有广告位的价格都一样，”她说。

“如果你在二月份买东西，价格会便宜很多，而且性价比也会比九月份买高得多。所以你才会看到在一些竞选中，共和党人和民主党人的平均支出存在如此巨大的差距，”弗伦奇说道。

在9月份电视和广播广告总支出排名前九的参议院竞选中，有七场民主党人每GRP的支出低于共和党人。

新罕布什尔州和阿拉斯加州是两个例外。共和党人对各自的候选人充满信心，在这两个州的主要市场都争取到了相当甚至更优惠的利率。在新罕布什尔州，共和党人将更多资金投入到利率更低的二级市场，进一步巩固了这一优势。

“总的来说，共和党人花钱效率很低，民调显示，民众并没有像预期那样频繁地看到他们的广告。所以，单从这个角度来看，他们的一些钱就白花了。在很多州，我们的竞选经费都落后于对手，这意味着我们必须做出更具战略性的决策，”弗伦奇说道。

通往2026年中期选举的道路现在就开始了。

每周，亚伦·布莱克都会以犀利的分析，拨开政治迷雾，深入剖析可能决定国会控制权的选情、候选人和趋势。订阅《20/26 视野》周刊，了解今年中期选举的最新动态。

托马斯表示，德克萨斯州尤其体现了这种效应，共和党外部团体正紧急出手拯救帕克斯顿，并向该州投入大量资金。他指出，由于地方市场竞争激烈，帕克斯顿的支持者开始在全国性的NFL比赛转播中购买广告时段。这就是为什么全国各地的人们会在没有达拉斯牛仔队或休斯顿德州人队出场的比赛中看到德克萨斯州参议院的广告。

他说：“在某些情况下，由于像休斯顿这样的本地广告位价格很高，购买全国性广告位实际上有时会更便宜。”

考虑到民主党候选人在每次竞选活动中筹集的资金都比共和党对手多，这使得他们能够以较低的价格将更多资金直接用于自己的广告，因此民主党的效率优势可能更大。

但得益于最高法院最近的一项裁决，今年首次允许全国政党委员会通过协调购买的方式享受候选人广告价格优惠。

这意味着像全国共和党国会委员会或全国共和党参议院委员会这样资金雄厚的全国性委员会可以与候选人（例如密歇根州的迈克·罗杰斯或俄亥俄州的参议员乔恩·赫斯特）合作，支付昂贵的广告宣传费用，同时获得候选人折扣。

协同购买的扩张使共和党人得以削弱民主党候选人在筹款方面的优势。民主党人也可以采取同样的做法，但共和党人在这方面采取的策略更为激进：9月份，共和党广告商在协同广告购买上的支出超过3000万美元，而民主党人的支出约为500万美元。

然而，像超级政治行动委员会这样的外部团体仍然发挥着主导作用，因为它们拥有接受无限额捐款和进行无限额支出的独特能力。

托马斯说：“这种资金实际上效率非常低下，但好处是，即使超级政治行动委员会效率低下，一两个人就可以开支票来资助整个项目。”