No, it's not some rogue Martian party edging them out, but the Democrats.
Even with a recent surge in fund-raising for Republican candidates, Democratic candidates have outraised their opponents over all by more than 30 percent in the 109 House races The New York Times has identified as in play. And Democratic candidates have significantly outspent their Republican counterparts over the last few months in those contests, $119 million to $79 million.
However...
Republican-leaning third-party groups, however, many of them financed by large, unrestricted donations that are not publicly disclosed, have swarmed into the breach, pouring more than $60 million into competitive races since July, about 80 percent more than the Democratic-leaning groups have reported spending.
As a result, the battle for control of the House has been increasingly shaping up as a test of whether a Democratic fund-raising edge, powered by the advantages of incumbency but accumulated in the smaller increments allowed by campaign finance law, can withstand the continuing deluge of spending by groups able to operate outside those limits, according to an analysis of political spending by The Times.
In other words, no one really knows what the bottom line is in financial support -- thanks to the change in the rules allowing unknown donors underwrite ads that don't target a specific candidate.
Even so, the Times reports, Dems are generally outspending Republicans. So far, Democrats find themselves with "spending advantage in about 60 percent of the 109 competitive House races and had invested, collectively, about 10 percent more money into the contests than Republican candidates and their aligned groups had over the previous few months."
Don't discount the anonymous donors, though. Overall, they are having a huge impact.
The hand-to-hand political combat between candidates, who must inch along in their own fund-raising in relatively modest bites, and these groups, which are able to leapfrog ahead with the help of a single giant donation, casts in bold relief the kind of outsized influence corporate and individual megadonors to such organizations can exert on specific races.
We know the media can convince many Americans of anything the media want us to believe. Now we have to wonder whether the "wave" is actually as likely as the media decided -- months ago -- is inevitable, or whether it was simply a way of beating the drums for the most corporate-friendly party.
___
The Washington Post also reports on the Democrats' spending surge, much of the money coming from unions as is traditional for Democrats. The difference is that unions disclose who their donors are even though they are no longer required to do so.
Much of the union effort is focused on canvassing, voter registration and other ground-level organizing instead of television or radio advertising, labor leaders said. Spokeswoman Candice Johnson said the 700,000-member Communications Workers of America is concentrating its organizing efforts on about 10 states, including Ohio, Pennsylvania, Kentucky and California.
"We can't match the Chamber of Commerce on advertising, but any election turns on turnout," Johnson said. "That's something the union movement is very good at - getting people to the polls."
The Chamber, which has vowed to spend up to $75 million on the midterms, has come under relentless attack from Democrats for keeping its donors secret. But many Democratic-leaning interest groups use the same nonprofit structure to cloak their contributors, including NARAL Pro-Choice America and the League of Conservation Voters.
Indeed, much of the spending on election communications and turnout operations this year will never be reported, whether on the Republican or Democratic side. Under federal election law, many groups are required to report only their spending on broadcast advertising.
In the case of unions, many of their political activities won't be reported until after the election. But labor groups say they provide more disclosure overall than many other independent groups, through reports to both the FEC and the Department of Labor.
"We're probably under the strictest disclosure requirements of anybody," said Eddie Vale, spokesman for the AFL-CIO.
