Republicans and their allies outspent Democrats in nearly every major race, and lost most of them
The 2026 U.S. midterm elections were the most expensive in American history, and the side that spent more mostly lost. Republicans and their allied groups outspent Democrats in nearly every major Senate race and in the Texas governor’s race, and lost almost all of them.
AIPAC, the pro-Israel lobby, had a similar night. Most of its money went to races its candidates lost, including the most expensive race it has ever fought.
In the final week before Election Day, about $11.21 billion had been spent or reserved for political ads, according to the ad-tracking firm AdImpact. It projects a final total of $11.6 billion, well above the previous record of $11.2 billion set in the 2024 presidential cycle.
In the seven Senate races rated toss-ups, Republicans outspent Democrats on ads by about $947 million to $625 million, an advantage of more than $320 million. Through September, Republicans paid for 60% of the advertising in the nine battleground Senate races. In each of the previous three cycles, Democrats had the bigger share.
Texas leads the way
Texas was the biggest example. By early October, Republican Ken Paxton and the groups backing him had spent about $175 million on the Senate race, compared with about $71 million for Democrat James Talarico and his allies. Super PACs aligned with Senate Majority Leader John Thune put in more than $175 million, and Trump’s own super PAC, MAGA Inc., added $10 million.
The race became the most expensive non-presidential contest in U.S. history. Talarico won by 12 points.
In the governor’s race, Republican Gov. Greg Abbott had spent more than $130 million by early October, compared with Democrat Gina Hinojosa’s $17 million. AdImpact found Hinojosa was outspent about 5-to-1 on ads. Elon Musk supplied nearly a fifth of Abbott’s most recent fundraising haul. Hinojosa won by about seven points.
The pattern repeats
The same thing happened across the Senate map. In Michigan, Republicans spent $105 million on ads for Mike Rogers, compared with $76 million for Democrat Abdul El-Sayed. El-Sayed won.
In Ohio, Republicans held a $41 million ad advantage through September, and Democrat Sherrod Brown still won a return to the Senate. In Maine, Sen. Susan Collins had a $32 million edge in TV spending as of mid-October and lost to Democrat Troy Jackson, who replaced Graham Platner as the party’s nominee in July.
In Georgia, the Senate Leadership Fund, the main super PAC tied to Senate Republican leaders, made its biggest-ever Georgia investment outside a runoff, $44 million. Sen. Jon Ossoff won by almost 20 points. In North Carolina, Republicans outspent Democrats on TV in September, then cut about $15 million in ad bookings as Democrat Roy Cooper pulled away.
Why the money bought less
Federal law entitles candidates to discounted TV ad rates, a break that outside groups do not get. About 90% of Republican ad dollars came from outside groups, compared with about half for Democrats, whose candidates raised more money directly.
The result: Republicans paid about $274 per rating point, a measure of how many viewers an ad reaches, compared with $201 for Democrats. In Texas, Republicans paid for 72% of broadcast ad spending through September but got only 54% of the airings.
Republican groups also bought late, when airtime was scarce. Paxton’s allies ended up buying national NFL ads because Texas stations were full. And as Trump’s approval fell, Republican ads stopped mentioning him.
Republicans did not outspend Democrats everywhere. In Kansas, Democrats spent more on ads, and Democrat Adam Hamilton won. In Mississippi, Democrat Scott Colom outspent Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith, and that race is still too close to call.
Musk’s $366 million
Billionaire Elon Musk spent roughly $366 million on the midterms, $276 million of it since July. About half went to Texas, where he lives, and where Democrats won both the Senate and governor’s races. The Politico named bim one of the night’s “biggest losers.”
AIPAC’s costly cycle
AIPAC and its super PAC, the United Democracy Project, spent more than $100 million this cycle, mostly in Democratic primaries against candidates critical of Israel.
Its single biggest bet was Michigan. It spent more than $30 million trying to defeat El-Sayed in the Democratic Senate primary, the most it has ever put into one race. El-Sayed won the primary, then the Senate seat on Tuesday.
Rogers had asked AIPAC to hold back in the general election, and the group shelved a video ad against El-Sayed. Its super PAC still sent mailers attacking him late in the race.
Responsible Statecraft, a foreign-policy publication critical of AIPAC, counts $84.1 million in AIPAC spending on races that have now been decided. It found that about $55.3 million of that, nearly two-thirds, went to races where the group’s candidate lost. By its count, AIPAC’s money backed the winning side 69% of the time in 2022 and 87% of the time in 2024.
The Intercept’s tracking paints a different picture: AIPAC is weakened but still spends heavily and wins most of its races. In October, AIPAC announced it would stop endorsing candidates and giving to them directly, while its super PAC keeps operating with unlimited money. Supporters call that a return to its older, quieter approach. Critics call it a retreat.
What comes next
The results are expected to prompt Republican scrutiny of campaign spending strategy, particularly the role of the Senate Leadership Fund. For major donors, the night showed the limits of outside spending in a climate shaped by rising gas prices and the war with Iran. It also raises the question of whether wealthy donors will keep committing such sums after a defeat this large.
