中期选举决战前瞻：共和党守擂与翻盘的白刃战

Michael Barbaro: From The New York Times, I'm Michael Barbaro. This is The Daily. Today, the Republican strategy to win the midterms and how it's playing out in spending, advertising, televised candidate debates, and personal attacks. I spoke with three of my colleagues, political reporters Shane Goldmacher, Lisa Lerer, and Nate Cohn. It's Thursday, October 15th. Lisa and Shane and Nate, thank you for joining this campaign roundtable. Appreciate it.

Lisa Lerer: Thanks for having us.

Shane Goldmacher: Woohoo.

Michael Barbaro: I appreciate that woohoo, Shane.

Shane Goldmacher: Big energy.

Michael Barbaro: So, loyal listeners of The Daily will recall that we have spent a lot of time on the show in the past few weeks talking about Democratic momentum in these midterm elections, especially in traditionally red states. We've talked about the fact that Democrats are favored, not by a lot, but favored to win both the House and the Senate based on our own polling. But today, we want to focus on the Republican strategy for winning these midterms and the potential electoral path to a Republican victory. And so, Shane, let me start with you. Can you summarize, based on your reporting, what the Republican strategy for victory is and I guess just clarify what would even constitute a Republican triumph in this election.

Shane Goldmacher: Yeah, I mean, I think that the Republican strategy for victory right now in the House doesn't really look like victory. It looks like keeping their losses to be in the minority, but not by a lot. This week, they made a number of changes to their ad reservations that basically ceded two more current Republican held seats after they seated one last week. They're seating sufficient races to let you know that they've given up on the math of winning the house. You don't give up on your incumbents unless things are looking bad and people are saying this is to stave off deeper potential losses.

Michael Barbaro: Got it. So, in the house victory might mean losing by less, right? It's not actually holding the majority at this moment.

Shane Goldmacher: And it's a totally different story in the Senate where Republicans very much feel like they are going to hold the majority and have a very good chance of expanding their majority. Over this past weekend, the Senate Leadership Fund, which is a super PAC run by allies of Mitch McConnell, announced $20 million in new ad buys across critical races, which shows they are playing offense in a lot of places.

Michael Barbaro: Okay, so the strategy is play defense in the House to contain the damage and go on total offense in the Senate.

Shane Goldmacher: Yeah.

Michael Barbaro: And Nate, in terms of just the pure political geography and polling, what are the prospects that they can hold the Senate or even expand it?

Nate Cohn: Well, the baseline map has always been extraordinarily favorable to Republicans. Out of the 35 Senate seats up this year, 26 are held by Democrats, and several of them are in states that Donald Trump won by huge margins in 2016—states like North Dakota, Indiana, West Virginia, Missouri, and Montana. Republicans only need to pick off a couple of these seats while defending their own territory in places like Texas, Tennessee, and Arizona to maintain or grow their majority. And right now, almost all public and private polling shows that places like North Dakota are looking very grim for Democrats. If Heidi Heitkamp loses North Dakota, that gives Republicans a real buffer even if they were to drop a seat in Nevada or Arizona.

Lisa Lerer: And Lisa, when it comes to the actual arguments and messaging on the ground, what is the core pitch that Republicans are making right now?

Lisa Lerer: Well, their messaging has really undergone a massive pivot. For months, particularly after the passage of the tax cuts, Republican leadership hoped this would be a referendum on the booming economy, record low unemployment, and the tax cuts. But that simply didn't resonate or create the kind of emotional intensity needed to match Democratic enthusiasm. So now, especially post-Kavanaugh hearings, they have pivoted hard to cultural warfare and grievance. The message isn't just "the economy is great"; it's "look at the unhinged, angry Democratic mob." They are portraying Democrats as an unruly force that wants to tear down due process and unleash chaos.

Michael Barbaro: Shane, back to that $20 million ad dump you mentioned. Where is that cash actually going, and what kinds of races are receiving these critical infusions?

Shane Goldmacher: It is going directly into the tightest, highest-stakes Senate races in the country: Missouri, Indiana, Florida, Nevada, and Arizona. In Missouri, Josh Hawley is challenging incumbent Claire McCaskill, and that race is a dead heat within the margin of error. In Florida, Rick Scott is taking on Bill Nelson in what is always an astronomically expensive state. Even in Texas, where Beto O'Rourke has raised historic sums against Ted Cruz, conservative outside groups are having to spend real money. These millions are funding ads that zero in on immigration, crime, and the contentious fight over Kavanaugh.

Michael Barbaro: This week we saw a flurry of high-profile televised debates across the country—Texas, Florida, Georgia, Arizona. Lisa, how are these debates reflecting the ground reality and the final appeals both parties are making to voters?

Lisa Lerer: The debates have been remarkably scorched-earth. If you look at the Cruz-O'Rourke debate in Texas, Cruz went straight for the jugular, portraying Beto as an out-of-touch, radical leftist who wants to take away guns and open the borders. O'Rourke, who had previously tried to run a strictly positive campaign, fired back by resurrecting Donald Trump's old moniker, calling him "Lyin' Ted." And in Arizona, Martha McSally accused Kyrsten Sinema of supporting treason over a decade-old radio comment about anti-war protests. It shows that both sides have completely taken off the gloves. There is no middle ground left; it's about disqualifying the opponent in the eyes of undecided and base voters alike.

Nate Cohn: 在当今的美国政治中，真正的摇摆选民已经越来越少了。中期选举的核心逻辑不是争取中间派，而是投票率的对决。民主党的基本盘由于反特朗普的情绪，在过去一年半里一直处于极度亢奋的状态，他们的筹款数字、特别选举中的投票表现都证明了这一点。共和党最大的软肋一直在于其基础选民的冷漠和自满。卡瓦诺听证会是一个转折点，它成功激怒了保守派农村选民和福音派选民。现在这些激烈的指控和广告轰炸，主要目的就是确保这部分刚刚被激怒的共和党选民在11月能够真正走出家门，把选票投进票箱。

筹款天平与最终悬念

迈克尔·巴尔巴罗: 谢恩，我们不得不谈谈资金问题。民主党今年公布的筹款数据简直令人瞠目结舌。贝托·奥罗克在一个季度内筹集了超过3800万美元，打破了参议院历史上的单季度筹款纪录。在众议院层面，几乎数十个有竞争力的选区里，民主党挑战者的资金都数倍于共和党现任议员。共和党如何应对这种前所未有的“绿色浪潮”？

谢恩·戈德马赫: 他们无法在小额个人捐款层面与民主党竞争，这就是残酷的现实。民主党建立了ActBlue这样一个极其高效的在线小额筹款生态系统，任何一个普通选民只要在手机上点几下，就能把5美元、10美元送到全国任何一个摇摆选区的候选人手中。面对这种由全国愤怒情绪驱动的草根资金洪流，共和党人唯一能做的就是依靠巨额捐赠者和超级政治行动委员会。像谢尔登·阿德尔森（Sheldon Adelson）这样的亿万富翁开出了数以千万计的支票，注入到国会领导层基金（CLF）和参议院领导层基金（SLF）中。但超级政治行动委员会买电视广告的价格要远远贵于候选人官方竞选团队的法定优待价。换句话说，共和党即使花同样的钱，买到的电视播出时长也少得多。这就是为什么他们在众议院被迫撤守，因为钱实在不够分配了。

迈克尔·巴尔巴罗: 丽莎，在距离投票日只有两周多的时间里，白宫在其中扮演了什么角色？特朗普总统本人的行程排得非常满，他在全国各地举行标志性的“让美国再次伟大”（MAGA）集会。他的出现对共和党候选人究竟是资产还是负债？

丽莎·勒勒: 这完全取决于具体的选区地图。这正是为什么参议院和众议院呈现出两极分化的核心原因。在蒙大拿、西弗吉尼亚、密苏里和田纳西这样的深红州，特朗普是绝对的王牌资产。他在那些地方依然拥有狂热的追随者，只要他降临举行几万人的集会，当地的共和党选民就会被彻底动员起来。但是，如果你把视线转向决定众议院归属的郊区选区——比如弗吉尼亚州北部、宾夕法尼亚州费城郊区、伊利诺伊州芝加哥郊区以及加利福尼亚州奥兰治县——特朗普就是剧毒的负资产。那里的受过高等教育的女性和温和保守派选民对他感到极度反感。共和党众议员在那里恨不得与特朗普划清界限，但特朗普每天的推特和争议性言论又不断把他们拖下水。

迈克尔·巴尔巴罗: 内特，最后总结一下。当我们跨入11月选举之夜时，我们需要重点观察哪些风向标来判断大局？