Nixon's the One*
- 1 day ago
- 3 min read
I was watching the primary election returns on Tuesday, and one stood out to me as what, perhaps, should be the most concerning to MAGOPs in the Mid-Terms. But while the race did get a lot of attention, as well as a notable feature of it, the result wasn't reported as being "concerning" to the MAGOP for the reason that struck me.
The race was Angie Nixon (* -- ahh, okay, that one) defeating the expected favorite Alexander Vindman to be Florida's Democratic nominee for the U.S. Senate. This was considered a big upset since Vindman had an overwhelmingly higher national profile, especially since she had none, and outraised her by over 16 times. (He raised more than $16 million to her $975,000.) And yet she won in almost a landslide, by 12 points. While she had next to no national profile, she was very well-known in Florida, as a longtime community organizer and currently a member of the Florida House of Representatives. And from all accounts ran a magnificent campaign.
But what kept staring at me was that dollar figure, being outspent 16-to-1.
Keep in mind that only a couple weeks ago, one of the major Mid-Term stories in the news was when fundraising figures were released, and the MAGOP had something like $500 million in their party's coffers, while the Democratic National Committee was on fumes. And Trump had another $500 million or so to spend (not that he will, necessarily, being Trump and a hoarder, but there's a money to even just slip through the couch cushions). Not to mention all the MAGOP-based PACs. And all this was combined with the news from the Supreme Court that ruled party organizations could now control much of this money.
To be clear, Democrats do have money to spend from PACS and different groups, including individual campaigns, as well as Senate and House fundraising committee. And they're doing well. But nothing close to what the MAGOP has overflowing with ungodly amounts.
So, no doubt, MAGOPs have been salivating, understandably, to spend it. Knowing that, sure, Trump's approval has already plummeted to a scary-low 32%, gas prices remain soaring, consumer prices are still high, and Trump's Iran War by choice has no end in sight -- but they have many, many, many more hundreds of millions of dollars to spend than Democrats to make their case.
So, on Tuesday, I imagined their reaction when MAGOP officials saw in Florida an unknown candidate to them, outspent $16 million to $975,000 against a well-known heroic opponent -- and not only beat him, but in a landslide, by 12 points. If their blood didn't curdle, and their heart muscles didn't constrict, then they weren't paying attention.
If you've been relying on this Midas-sized treasure chest of fundraising to help make your case -- and you see that Democratic Senate primary result in Florida, and you know that the case you want to make is defending a party leader with a 32% approval...and dementia...with high gas and consumer prices, hated immigration policies, and a war his team has no idea how to end, you might feel like Police Chief Brody in Jaws standing in the back of his trawler when he sees the monstrous shark rear its body, and he turns to say terrified, "I think we're going to need a bigger boat."
To be clear, having massively more money to spend than your opponent is a great thing, and incredibly important. And it remains so here. And it's generally considered easier to overcome a fundraising deficit in a primary rather than general election. But "generally" is the operative term, because far more important -- especially in this world of social media and alternative online news and angst -- is having good candidates, a great message, an enthusiastic voter base that is exploding-anxious to vote, and a tepid opposition trying to defend the hated and indefensible.
Yes, having monumentally more money is absolutely critical. Absolutely. No question at all. But if it was the most important thing, JEB! Bush would have been elected president. In a landslide.
Comments