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

Sen. Susan Collins, a Republican from Maine, speaks to members of the media while campaigning ahead of the midterm election at the Fryeburg Fair in Fryeburg, Maine, on October 9, 2026. Graeme Sloan/Bloomberg/Getty Images Senate election US elections PACs See all topics Facebook Tweet Email Link Threads Link Copied! Follow 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.

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.