I’ve mentioned a few times that I think Democrat Angie Nixon, just based on my watching her in campaign appearances and interviews, is a very strong candidate — certainly the most canny and able of the DSA-affiliated major race candidates I’ve seen this year. Being a strong candidate, to be clear, is a different metric from whether you’re a good match for a state or district. But I also think her winning isn’t impossible. Same story we’ve seen in other places: bad bad climate for Republicans and an at best meh GOP incumbent. Ashley Moody is a DeSantis crony who was basically gifted the seat when Marco Rubio became Secretary of State.
I just saw reports that Senate Democrats (Senate Majority PAC) are putting $5 million into the Kansas Senate race. I’m really glad to see that. (This comes after Republicans have abandoned North Carolina and are redeploying a lot of that money to Kansas.) But that raises the question not a few people are asking which is why aren’t they supporting Nixon? People ask if its because she’s tied to the DSA or some other reason?
I can’t know what’s in Schumer’s or Kirsten Gillibrand’s head (I’ve never been a fan of hers). But there’s a huge factor you have to take into account. Making a serious advertising play in Florida is massively more expensive than doing the same in Kansas or Alaska or Iowa or almost any other state in the country. It’s got multiple very expensive media markets and a huge population. A sort of reverse of the GOP’s small state advantage comes into play — a small-state vulnerability. I don’t know the exact multiples but I wouldn’t be surprised if you could make a serious ad spend play in all the current front-line red state Senate races (with the exception of Texas) for the cost of getting involved in Florida.
So whatever you think of Nixon or that race, there’s just an overwhelming logic to putting the money into those other smaller states, especially when you consider that Democrats are doing significantly better in those races.
