共和党采取守势——且为此付出代价


2026-10-14T10:00:46.476Z / https://www.cnn.com/2026/10/14/politics/midterms-ad-wars-republican-spending

共和党正在摇摆州参议院竞选中投入数亿美元广告经费,在中期选举的最后阶段拼命捍卫本党席位不断告急的选区。

但说到每一块钱能发挥多大效用,他们实质上是在全食超市支付溢价,而民主党却好市多淘折扣。

根据AdImpact的数据,在上月九场竞争最激烈的参议院竞选中,共和党在广播电视广告上的累计支出比民主党多出近100%,分别为2.33亿美元和1.21亿美元,但获得的收视率点仅多出约40%。

广告反馈

这种差距源于策略差异。共和党严重依赖超级政治行动委员会等外部团体,这些团体需要支付高额广告费用,且常在竞选后期大手笔投放广告,此时广告库存已趋紧张。

相比之下,民主党则利用了针对候选人的折扣费率,以及更早预订、成本更低的广告时段。

资深共和党战略家约翰·托马斯表示,在当前阶段,共和党投入更多却收获更少,意味着他们巨额资金优势带来的“震慑效果”未必能转化为实际的现场影响力。

他说,一个更好的衡量标准是总收视率(GRPs),这是广告商用来衡量广告 campaign 覆盖范围和频次的单位,与实际花费无关。

在这九场竞选中——外部团体的广告投入约占共和党总广告支出的九成,而民主党这一比例约为一半——民主党每获得一个总收视率点需支付201美元,而共和党则约为274美元。

九月的部分竞选中,民主党在总收视率点上实际上反超了共和党,完全抵消了共和党在支出上的优势。

例如在北卡罗来纳州,九月共和党在电视广告上的支出约1700万美元,高于民主党约1400万美元。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现任参议员汤姆·蒂利斯席位的机会构成重大威胁。但民主党通过广告投放获得了超过7.1万个总收视率点,而共和党仅获得约5.8万个。到10月初,在意识到沃特利前路坎坷、成本高昂后,共和党实际削减了约1500万美元的剩余广告预订。

上月在缅因州,民主党同样被共和党以约32%的差距超出支出。这场关键的摇摆战中,前州参议员特洛伊·杰克逊正试图挑战资深共和党现任议员苏珊·柯林斯,后者得到了全国共和党人的大力支持。但同样,尽管支出更少,民主党每美元获得的总收视率点反而多出6%。

即便在德克萨斯州——九月共和党广告资金碾压民主党,支出是民主党四倍多——总收视率点的差距比例也要小得多。共和党获得的总收视率点仅为民主党2.6倍。

一个共和党超级政治行动委员会不得不斥资逾2200万美元,在九月播出其主打广告,宣传德克萨斯州总检察长肯·帕克斯顿作为检察官的政绩,累计播出约15500次。民主党参议院候选人詹姆斯·塔拉里科的竞选团队仅花费不到400万美元,播出其播放量最高的广告,将帕克斯顿描绘为“德克萨斯州最腐败的政客”,累计播出约8000次。这意味着民主党仅用不到五分之一的支出,就获得了约一半的播出时长。

参议院多数党委员会(民主党领先的超级政治行动委员会)的沟通主任劳伦·弗伦奇也强调,竞选后期购买电视广告会贵得离谱。“竞选的实际情况是,并非所有广告空间的成本都相同,”她说。

“如果你在二月份购买广告,价格会便宜很多,每一块钱能获得的回报也要比九月份购买高得多。这就是为什么在这些竞选中,共和党和民主党平均支付的广告费用会出现如此巨大的差距,”弗伦奇说道。

在九月电视和广播广告总支出排名前九的参议院竞选中,有七场民主党每总收视率点的花费都低于共和党。

两个例外是新罕布什尔州和阿拉斯加州。共和党对本党候选人充满信心,能够在这两个州的关键市场获得相当甚至更优惠的费率。在新罕布什尔州,共和党将更多预算分配到成本较低的二级市场,进一步巩固了这一优势。

“总体而言,共和党资金的使用效率相当低下,民调显示民众看到他们广告的次数低于预期。仅此一点,他们的部分资金就相当于打了水漂。我们在很多州都被对手超出支出,这意味着我们必须做出更具战略性的决策,”弗伦奇说。

托马斯表示,德克萨斯州尤其能体现这种效应,共和党外部团体紧急出手救援帕克斯顿,向该州投入大量资金。他指出,帕克斯顿的盟友开始购买全国橄榄球联赛的广告时段,因为本地市场广告位已过于拥挤。这就是为什么全国各地的观众在观看不包含达拉斯牛仔队或休斯顿德州人队的比赛时,也能看到德克萨斯州参议院竞选广告。

“在某些情况下,由于本地广告位(比如休斯顿的时段)价格过高,购买全国性广告时段实际上反而更便宜,”他说。

民主党在资金使用效率上的优势可能还要更大,因为民主党候选人在竞选筹款上始终领先共和党对手,这让他们能够以更低的费率直接为自己的广告投入更多资金。

但得益于最高法院最近的一项裁决,今年全国性政党委员会首次可以通过联合采购享受候选人广告费率。

这意味着像美国国会共和党全国委员会或美国参议院共和党全国委员会这样资金充裕的全国性委员会,可以与候选人合作——比如密歇根州的迈克·罗杰斯或俄亥俄州参议员乔恩·赫斯特德——为昂贵的广告活动买单,同时享受候选人折扣。

联合采购范围的扩大让共和党抵消了民主党在候选人筹款上的优势。民主党也可以如法炮制,但共和党采取的行动要积极得多:九月,共和党广告商在联合广告采购上的支出超过3000万美元,而民主党仅约500万美元。

不过,超级政治行动委员会等外部团体仍占据主导地位,因为它们能够接受无限额捐赠并进行无限额支出。

“这笔钱的使用效率确实非常非常低,但即便超级政治行动委员会效率低下,其优势在于一两句话就能筹集到足够资金支撑整场竞选,”托马斯说。

Republicans are playing defense — and it’s costing them

2026-10-14T10:00:46.476Z / https://www.cnn.com/2026/10/14/politics/midterms-ad-wars-republican-spending

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.

Ad Feedback

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.

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.

评论

发表回复

您的邮箱地址不会被公开。 必填项已用 * 标注

湘ICP备2026001899号-2