By Dominique Monserrat ‘21, Andrew Kushnir ‘22, Natasha Wong ‘22
Follow on Twitter @wesgov_CT2020
We have collected spending data on Facebook advertising from 24 out of 36 total Connecticut State Senate districts (for more on our data collection, click here, and for more on our competitiveness classifications, click here). Our data spans the week of September 6th until the week of October 11th (through October 17). Table 1 shows spending broken down by the individual candidates and by a candidate’s political party during the period between September 6 and October 17.
Mary Daughtery Abrams (D-13) Leads all Candidates in Spending; George Logan (R-17) Outpaces Republicans
Table 1: Total Spending by Candidate
| Candidate Name | Party | District No. | Total Spending 9/6–10/17 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mary Daugherty Abrams | Dem | 13 | 9,424 |
| Martin Looney | Dem | 11 | 8,358 |
| George Logan | Rep | 17 | 8,194 |
| Lisa Thomas | Dem | 35 | 7,830 |
| Michelle Lapine McCabe | Dem | 28 | 7,772 |
| Kim Healy | Rep | 26 | 7,399 |
| Catherine Osten | Dem | 19 | 7,344 |
| Dan Champagne | Rep | 35 | 6,777 |
| Frederick Moffa | Dem | 7 | 5,831 |
| Tony Hwang | Rep | 28 | 5,484 |
| Steve Cassano | Dem | 4 | 5,160 |
| Mike Southworth | Rep | 14 | 4,915 |
| Steve Weir | Rep | 19 | 4,895 |
| Ellie Kousidis | Rep | 25 | 4,655 |
| Norm Needleman | Dem | 33 | 4,531 |
| Len Suzio | Rep | 13 | 4,363 |
| Paul Formica | Rep | 20 | 4,274 |
| Martha Marx | Dem | 20 | 4,112 |
| Brendan Saunders | Rep | 33 | 4,091 |
| Richie Ruglio | Rep | 9 | 4,039 |
| Julie Kushner | Dem | 24 | 3,437 |
| Craig Miner | Rep | 30 | 3,393 |
| Jorge Cabrera | Dem | 17 | 2,943 |
| Kevin C. Kelly | Rep | 21 | 2,796 |
| Eric Berthel | Rep | 32 | 2,790 |
| Robert Statchen | Dem | 18 | 2,649 |
| Matthew Corey | Rep | 4 | 2,559 |
| Matthew L. Lesser | Dem | 9 | 1,932 |
| John Kissel | Rep | 7 | 1,847 |
| Alexandra Kasser | Dem | 36 | 1,792 |
| Will Haskell | Dem | 26 | 1,735 |
| Jeff Desmarais | Dem | 32 | 1,683 |
| Ryan Fazio | Rep | 36 | 1,259 |
| Gennaro Bizzarro | Rep | 6 | 1,231 |
| Bob Duff | Dem | 25 | 1,220 |
| Susan Chapman | Rep | 24 | 854 |
| David Gronbach | Dem | 30 | 700 |
| Carlo Leone | Dem | 27 | 0 |
| Eva Maldonado | Rep | 27 | 0 |
| Heather Somers | Rep | 18 | 0 |
| James Maroney | Dem | 14 | 0 |
| Jameson White | Rep | 11 | 0 |
| Joan Hartley | Dem | 15 | 0 |
| Rick Lopes | Dem | 6 | 0 |
| Saud Anwar | Dem | 3 | 0 |
Spending varies widely across candidates; some, like Democrat Cathleen Osten or Republican George Logan, have spent upwards of seven thousand dollars each on Facebook advertisements so far, while seven candidates have not spent at all over the past month and a half time frame. Mary Daughtery Abrams, the incumbent Democrat in the 13th district, is the top individual spender with $9,424 so far. George Logan of the 17th district leads the GOP, having spent $8,194 on Facebook advertisements for his reelection campaign. The average total Facebook spending per candidate from September 6 to October 17 is $3,428.
Democrats Lead Republicans Due to Late Stage Spending Surge
As can be seen from Figure 1, Republicans heavily outspent Democrats on Facebook in our sampled districts in earlier weeks; indeed, by 9/13–9/19 the average GOP candidate outspent the average Democratic candidate $409.04 to $83.70. The third week (9/20-9/26), however, saw an increase for Democrats, with the average Democrat now only trailing the average Republican $469.45 to $345.87. From 9/27–10/3, Democrats outspent Republicans for the first time in the surveyed time period, then extended their lead significantly from 10/4–10/17. After six weeks, the average weekly Democratic spending ($1,419) now leads the average Republican ($869).
Figure 1: Average Candidate Spending per Week, by Party
As a result of this late-stage spending burst, Democrats have all but eliminated the GOP’s Facebook spending advantage first built up during early September. To date, the parties are neck-and-neck, with the average Republican candidate in our sample having spent $3,446 and the average Democrat having spent $3,411.
Figure 2: Average Candidate Spending, by Party (9/6–10/17)
Competitive Districts Feature Highest Average Spending per Candidate
Based on vote shares in recent State Senate elections, we classified districts as either historically competitive or historically safe for one party. These ratings should not be considered forecasts of the likely outcome in a district this year but are useful for examining how Facebook spending may vary as a function of recent electoral trends in a district.
Half of the districts in our sample are classified as historically competitive. The other half are roughly split between historically safe Democratic and Republican districts (Table 2). (For more information on our competitiveness classifications, click here).
Districts we’ve identified as historically competitive include: 4, 6, 13, 17, 18, 19, 20, 24, 26, 28, 33, and 36, while districts 3, 9, 11, 14, 15, 25, and 27 have been identified as historically safe Democratic and districts 7, 21, 30, 32, and 35 as historically safe Republican.
Table 2: Frequency Table of Competitiveness of Districts
| Type | Frequency | Percent |
|---|---|---|
| Competitive | 12 | 50.00% |
| Safe Dem | 7 | 29.17% |
| Safe Rep | 5 | 20.83% |
| Total | 24 | 100.00% |
Figure 3 shows average spending by candidate per week by competitive versus safe districts.
Figure 3: Average Candidate Spending per Week, by Competitiveness
While fairly close through the first three weeks, average candidate spending in historically competitive districts has far eclipsed average candidate spending in historically safe districts as Election Day draws closer. From 9/13–9/19, spending across district competitiveness was nearly identical; $243 in safe districts as compared to $243 in competitive districts. During 10/11–10/17, however, the average candidate running in a historically competitive district spent $547 more than their safe district counterparts ($1,406 and $859, respectively)
Figure 4 displays the average spending by candidate across our time period for historically competitive versus safe districts.
Figure 4: Average Candidate Spending, by Competitiveness (9/6–10/17)
As might be expected, candidates in historically competitive districts have generally found it necessary to devote more financial resources to Facebook advertising than candidates in districts where the outcome has been more predictable over the last eight years. The average competitive district candidate has by now spent $3,979 across the entirety of the surveyed time frame, while the average candidate in a historically safe district has spent $2,798.
Breaking down spending in historically safe districts by their partisan leaning (Safe Democratic or Safe Republican), it is clear that historically Safe Republican districts have been the sites of significantly more spending. The average candidate (of both parties) running in a historically Safe Republican district has spent $3,739, as opposed to $2,093 for the average candidate in a historically Safe Democratic district.
Parties Differ in Average Candidate Spending Across Partisan Leanings of Districts
Figure 5: Average Candidate Spending per Week, by Party and Competitiveness
Average Republican spending remained fairly stable across all categories from 9/13 to 9/26 before a sharp uptick in from 9/27 to 10/10. Only during 9/6–9/12, 10/4–10/10 and 10/11–10/17 is significant differentiation apparent between average GOP spending in historically competitive districts and average GOP spending in historically Safe Republican districts; in fact, average Republican spending was greater in Safe Republican districts than in competitive districts during 9/13–9/19.
Average Democratic spending remained similar across all district types until 9/20–9/26, in which spending in historically Safe Republican districts significantly increased. The next week saw average Democratic spending in historically competitive districts rise to nearly match spending in historically Safe Republican districts, before exceeding it during 10/4–10/10 and 10/11–10/17. Democratic spending in historically Safe Democratic districts has consistently trailed Democratic spending in competitive and historically Safe Republican districts.
Figure 6: Average Democratic Candidate Spending per Week, by Competitiveness
Figure 7: Average Republican Candidate Spending per Week, by Competitiveness
Figure 8: Average Candidate Spending by Party and Competitiveness (9/6–10/17)
Cumulatively, the average Democrat and average Republican have spent more money in historically competitive districts than in districts that traditionally lean in a partisan direction. It perhaps comes as no surprise that these historically competitive seats seem to prompt a greater financial dedication to attempts at persuasion among candidates of both parties.
Interestingly enough, it appears that average Democratic spending in historically Safe Republican districts outpaces Republican spending in historically Safe Democratic districts, while average Republican spending in historically Safe Republican districts is greater than Democratic spending in historically Safe Democratic districts. This could signal a more aggressive approach to ad spending among Democrats than Republicans; the average Democratic candidate seems far more eager to spend in districts they have a low probability of winning, while the average Republican seems to prefer playing defense in districts they are likely to win anyways.
