Will GOP Super-PACs give up on the House and focus on the Senate?

Politics & Elections
1

In the AZ-8 thread there was a little discussion about how the series of GOP special election shellackings despite sometimes unprecedented (and fairly unmatched) GOP-Super PAC spending may impact GOP Super-PAC fundraising and spending going into mid-terms. One perspective was that fear of losing their gains may motivate even heavier investment by those deep pockets. But as I speculated there, another possibility is that they give up on the House this cycle and go all in on defending potentially at risk Senate seats (which could include some currently considered “likely R” if special elections do accurately portend).

What think you? Will they double down on House races that they previously would have taken for granted? Or accept the House as a lost cause that is not much worse being big lost or not as big lost and instead reduce the risk of what is still considered an unlikely Democratic majority in the Senate as well. Where will they place their chips?

2

Well, it takes BOTH houses to pass a bill and get it to the president. So, even though senators are far more important than reps because there are far fewer, the practical reality it that they hold equal importance in terms of controlling legislation. I think they’ll fight for everything they can.

3

The Senate votes on SCOTUS nominees all by its lonesome. Losing the sure path to getting an even more solidly conservative majority in place that will pass rulings they like for decades? That they do not want to risk.

Googling finds me some support for the speculation.

4

Well, there’s at least one district the Republicans don’t have to worry about; I just got my sample ballot, and in California’s 5th district, there are no Republicans running (that I know of) - just the incumbent Democrat, a Green, and two “decline to state.”

5

I would be careful about predicting the demise of the Republicans and the “Blue Wave”.

6

Agreed. The Democratic Party has a habit of snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory.

Except for a replacement Vice-President the Senate alone gives advice & consent to presidential appointments.

7

The question of the thread is NOT whether or not there will be, or predicting a House Blue wave. The question is whether or not GOP donors are convinced (correctly or not) that such is the case for the House, whether or not they feel theSenate is at any risk, and if so if that impacts their spending choices moving forward. And what follows from that if so.

8

Meanwhile Senate race PACsare getting big donations on both sides.

Democratic side $22.1 million this year and $43 million for the 2018 cycle.

GOP Senate race PACs side $28.7 million so far this cycle.

RNC outraising the DNC as have been the House PACs. Individual D candidates outraising the R ones.

Will those shift moving forward based on current perceptions? That’s the question of the thread.

9

Replacement Veep is different. Requires majority vote of both Houses.

See the 25th Amendment, section 2.

10

Losing the House does lead to Nancy Pelosi being two hearbeats away. I’m having a tough time believing donors are willing to let that happen without a fight.

11

Because of the numerous times the Speaker has become President?

12

True, but it’s not an unthinkable scenario - Trump resigns (I know, we’ve been saying that since Jan 2017), Pence takes over, and the now Democratic House rejects every VP candidate he sends them, keeping Nancy in the number 2 spot.

13

It would have to be a Democratic Senate (possible but less likely).

14

A replacement VP has to be approved by a majority of both houses of Congress -

25th Amendment. So either house can keep the VP office vacant indefinitely.

15

Technically, there was one Speaker who became President: James K. Polk. But that was through election, not succession.