Another day, another round of bad news for the Democratic Party.
November’s midterm elections will feature hundreds of races at the state, local, and federal levels. And things just got a little better for Republicans.
Kentucky State Sen. Robin Webb has switched her party from Democrat to Republican.
It is a tough hit for the Democratic Party in the state, as Webb is from a rural area of Kentucky, which has been a stronghold for the blue party because of its union ties and coal-mining industry.
“First and foremost, I’m a mother, a rancher, and a lawyer with deep personal and professional roots in Kentucky’s coal country,” the former Democrat said.
“As the Democratic Party continues its lurch to the left and its hyperfocus on policies that hurt the workforce and economic development in my region, I no longer feel it represents my values,” the former Democrat added.
“It has become untenable and counterproductive to the best interests of my constituents for me to remain a Democrat,” she said. “While it’s cliché, it’s true: I didn’t leave the party — the party left me.”
Robert Benvenuti, Chairman of the Republican Party of Kentucky, celebrated the news.
“Like countless other Kentuckians, [Webb] has recognized that the policies and objectives of today’s Democratic Party are simply not what they once were, and do not align with the vast majority of Kentuckians,” he said.
“I always respected that [Webb] approached issues in a very thoughtful and commonsense manner, and that she never failed to keenly focus on what was best for her constituents,” he said. “It is my pleasure to welcome Sen. Robin Webb to the Republican Party.”
Republicans’ fundraising advantage could grow even larger following the Supreme Court’s decision Tuesday, a ruling that comes as Democrats continue to face fundraising challenges ahead of the midterm elections.
Democrats contend that the court’s ruling, which allows political parties to coordinate more freely with candidates on campaign spending, could give Republicans a significant advantage by helping the GOP better compete in key battleground races where Democratic candidates have traditionally outraised their opponents.
Republicans already hold a fundraising advantage through the National Republican Congressional Committee and the National Republican Senatorial Committee.
The gap is even wider at the national party level, where the Republican National Committee has reported substantially more cash on hand than the Democratic National Committee.
Democrats argue that Tuesday’s Supreme Court ruling could further strengthen the GOP’s financial position by allowing political parties to coordinate campaign spending more closely with their candidates.
They contend the decision could help Republicans offset Democratic fundraising advantages in competitive races and stretch campaign dollars further, particularly in costly advertising markets where parties may now benefit from the same discounted advertising rates traditionally available to candidates.
The ruling prompted concern among Democratic strategists working on competitive Senate and House races across the country.
Brian Derrick, founder of the Democratic fundraising platform Oath, complained that the decision would “unequivocally” benefit the Republican National Committee by expanding its ability to coordinate campaign spending with GOP candidates.
“They’re gonna be able to deploy those funds in more highly-leveraged scenarios to make up for the gap in candidate funding,” Derrick said.
“It’s definitely a boost for the Republican Party in the midterms, and it’s a shame for the country overall,” he said.
Before Tuesday’s ruling, federal law limited how much political parties could spend in coordination with their candidates.
In House races, the coordination limits ranged from $63,600 to $127,200, while Senate limits ranged from $127,200 to nearly $4 million, depending on the state’s population.
Campaigns frequently use those coordinated expenditures to purchase television advertising.
Campaigns have historically been able to obtain significantly lower advertising rates than outside political groups, allowing coordinated spending between parties and candidates to stretch campaign dollars further in many media markets,
