Did Campaigns Bet Too Big on Broadcast in 2026?

Ken Paxton and his Republican allies spent upwards of $160 million on broadcast ads, hoping that saturating the airwaves would give the Texas Republican a critical edge in his bid to hold a critical Senate seat for the GOP. 

That bet ultimately failed on Tuesday night, when Texas voters delivered a decisive victory to Democrat James Talarico, whose campaign and political allies spent just about a third as much as Paxton and his supporters on broadcast.

All told, political advertisers dropped about $5.84 billion on broadcast in the 2026 midterms cycle, accounting for roughly half of the nearly $12 billion in ad spending this cycle and making broadcast, once again, the biggest beneficiary of political ad dollars, according to data tracked by AdImpact. 

But Tuesday’s election results in Texas and other battlegrounds underscore the limits of that broadcast-heavy strategy and raise questions about whether it remains the most efficient and most effective way to reach voters in a fractured and chaotic political environment, in which fewer Americans are tuning into the same stations for information.

The Texas Senate race is just one example of political advertisers’ big bet on broadcast failing to pay off as they had hoped. 

In Ohio, 61 percent of the $292 million in broadcast spending in the state’s closely watched Senate race came from Sen. Jon Husted (R-Ohio) and his allies, according to AdImpact. Democrat Sherrod Brown went on to win that contest on Tuesday by a 5-point margin. 

A similar scenario played out in Michigan, where Democrat Abdul El-Sayed notched a win over Republican Mike Rogers in the state’s hotly contested Senate race, despite being outspent 2-to-3 on broadcast. That contest ultimately saw about $161 million in broadcast spending.

And in Maine, Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and allied groups dropped roughly $24 million more than her Democratic opponent Troy Jackson and his allies on broadcast ads, only to fall to Jackson on election night. 

That’s not to say there aren’t still clear benefits with broadcast. Even as more and more Americans turn to other platforms, like streaming channels, podcasts and social media for news and entertainment, broadcast remains an effective way to reach large swaths of voters tuning in for news broadcasts or sports. 

What’s more, broadcast metrics are easily accessible, allowing advertisers to keep close tabs on how many people they’re reaching and when. 

And it’s not like political advertisers are putting all their eggs in one basket. While broadcast accounted for the largest single share of political ad spending this cycle, CTV saw $2.61 billion in spending, or about 22 percent of total ad dollars, and cable drew $1.27 billion, or about 11 percent of total ad spending this cycle, according to AdImpact.

For some candidates, heavy broadcast spending appears to have paid off. In Georgia, for instance, Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.) and his allies spent nearly twice as much on broadcast ads as Rep. Mike Collins (R-Ga.) and his supporters in the state’s Senate contest. That ultimately paid off for Democrats in the form of an 18-point victory for Ossoff.

Likewise, Democrat Roy Cooper won North Carolina’s Senate race on Tuesday after he and his allies outspent Republican Michael Whatley and his supporters on broadcast. The same was true in Kansas, where Democrat Adam Hamilton won an upset victory over Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kansas), making him the first Democrat in nearly a century to win a Senate seat in Kansas.

Of course, Tuesday’s election results raise another question for campaigns and other political advertisers: In an election year defined by voter discontent with the cost of living, an ongoing war with Iran and a deeply unpopular president, was there any amount of ad money that could have truly saved Republicans?

“It was always going to be an uphill climb,” one Republican digital strategist said. “We had the money, so why not throw it wherever we can?”