Are we really spending $400 million on this?
​
Trump's operation says it will spend over $400 million on these midterms. Already past $300 million on ads, rallies, and campaign activity — and the election is still ten days away. He put it in a post himself, like it was a point of pride. And you know what? In a way, it is. $400 million is a staggering amount of money for a sitting president to pour into midterms.
​
But here's the part that got me. You feel me? You can spend $400 million and still be losing.
​
The forecasts say so. Decision Desk HQ's October 21 projection gives Democrats a 78% chance of taking back the House, with a median forecast of 236 seats. The Senate? A 56% chance, a narrow 51-seat majority. North Carolina's open Senate seat is leaning toward Roy Cooper. Minnesota moved to Lean Democratic. Even South Carolina — South Carolina — tightened up.
​
So, the money isn't going toward winning new ground. It's going toward holding on.
​
Speaker Mike Johnson went to Trump privately and asked for more cash for House races. Within days, nearly $30 million flowed into dozens of them. But listen to what Republican operatives are actually saying behind the scenes: this is a "batten down the hatches" situation. They've gone from playing offense to protecting incumbents in places that used to be safe — Arizona, Ohio, Florida, Wisconsin. One operative said they haven't seen an incumbent in a competitive district crack 50% in any recent internal polling. Not one.
​
And then there's the approval number. Trump's approval hit record lows this week — 34% in the NYT/Siena poll, 32% in CNN's, 31% in Reuters/Ipsos. That's the lowest for a president heading into midterms since Harry Truman in 1946. Six in ten Americans disapprove. That's the weather this $400 million is flying into.
​
Here's a small detail that tells you everything about where things stand: Trump endorsed three New Jersey House Republicans this week — Van Drew, Smith, Kean — and left off the Republican Senate nominee, Justin Murphy, who's challenging Cory Booker. When a president skips his own party's Senate candidate ten days out, that's not an oversight. That's a calculation.
​
Now, to be fair, the money does buy something real. MAGA Inc. had $424 million in the bank through the end of August, and that kind of war chest means Republican Senate candidates have a serious financial edge even while Democratic campaigns raise more from individual donors. Ads matter. Rallies matter. Turnout operations matter. And redistricting tilted roughly eight more seats toward Republicans before a single vote was cast.
​
But money has a limit, and I think we're watching it. You can redraw the map. You can flood the airwaves. You cannot buy back a mood. Voters who backed Trump in 2024 are the same voters now telling pollsters they're dissatisfied or just staying home. That's the thing about a wave — it doesn't ask what you spent.
​
So, I'll ask you the same question I asked myself when I saw that number: are we really spending $400 million on this? Or are we watching $400 million learn what the rest of us already know — that trust isn't for sale, and turnout is the only currency that counts on November 3?
​
What do you think — does money still decide elections, or has something shifted?

​
​