Republicans are starting to trounce Democrats in political spending across the Senate map, and that advantage is now showing up in one of the metrics campaigns care about most: impressions.

Why it matters: Money matters in a campaign's closing weeks, but what campaigns are ultimately buying is voters' attention — and the price varies, depending on who is buying and when they place their ads.

• 📺 Beginning in September, campaigns and super PACs start competing for the same finite supply of advertising inventory. But the campaigns are guaranteed lower rates.
• Republicans are generating substantially more impressions — an estimate of the number of times an ad is seen — but their advantage isn't nearly as large as the spending disparity would suggest.

The intrigue: North Carolina is the only key battleground where Republicans have been spending more for fewer impressions in the first weeks of September.

• Democrats generated 245 million impressions supporting former Gov. Roy Cooper, compared with 226 million for Republican Michael Whatley — even while being outspent by Republicans $10.6 million to $9 million.
• Whatley has been consistently trailing Cooper in the polls.
• ⚖️ It is forcing Republicans to weigh whether to begin pulling resources there. One key GOP super PAC took down $6.5 million worth of ads for October, as Semafor first reported.

By the numbers: From Sept. 1 through Sept. 17, Republican advertisers generated 502 million impressions in Texas, compared with 331 million for Democrats, according to Kinetiq Political Insights.

• 🤠 Republicans, relying heavily on super PACs to bolster Attorney General Ken Paxton, spent $37 million over that period.
• Democrats spent $9.5 million, with much of that coming directly from state Rep. James Talarico's campaign.

In Ohio: Republican ads generated 406 million impressions supporting Sen. Jon Husted, compared with 320 million for former Sen. Sherrod Brown.

• 💰 Outside GOP groups accounted for much of Husted's advertising, with Republicans spending roughly $22 million on his behalf. Democrats spent $14 million for Brown.
• Husted will get another boost. Fairshake, the crypto industry's main super PAC, has reserved $30 million in Ohio to oppose Brown.

🚗 Driving the news: Republicans opened up a massive spending advantage in September, outspending Democrats on air in nearly every competitive Senate race.

• Those gaps have widened as more GOP-aligned super PACs have entered the fray.

🌎 Zoom out: Candidates get lower rates from broadcasters, meaning they get more airtime for fewer hard dollars than outside groups and super PACs.

• Super PACs can raise unlimited sums, but often pay many times more than candidates for comparable broadcast inventory.

🔎 Zoom in: Democrats' strength in online fundraising has helped their candidates amass large hard-dollar war chests, while Republicans have countered with a significant advantage in super PAC and party money.

• This year, a Supreme Court ruling opened the door for party committees to combine their funds with campaigns and get the lower rates.
• The NRSC estimates that coordinated spending can make its advertising dollars stretch three to 10 times further than they did last cycle, we reported. It's committing $46.5 million to coordinated campaigns across eight states.

The bottom line: Republicans are relieved that the big-spending super PACs have arrived in force.

• But that relief is tempered by concern that the cash infusion has come after some voters' views of the races and candidates may have already hardened.

Share this story

— Hans Nichols and Stef W. Kight

Rep. Jared Golden's endorsement of one of House Republicans' most vulnerable incumbents, Rep. Mike Lawler, is going down like a lead balloon among his fellow House Democrats.

Why it matters: The anger could blow back on Golden's closest ally, Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D-Wash.). (It won't have much impact on Golden [D-Maine], who is retiring.)

• 💨 "This smoke-and-mirrors ploy will do nothing to change the outcome of the race," House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) said in a statement today.
• Jeffries accused Lawler of "peddling an eleventh-hour endorsement from a retiring congressmember who represents an out-of-town district more than 400 miles away."

🔥 "People are pissed off," a House Democrat speaking on the condition of anonymity to share details of private discussions told us, adding, "He is doing Gluesenkamp Perez no favors.… This will hurt her."

• Gluesenkamp Perez, who often breaks from party leadership and moves as a unit with Golden, "is going to have to figure out how she navigates around the suspicion this will create for her next Congress," this lawmaker said.
• "He is leaving," said a senior House Democrat. "Marie is a bigger problem."

The other side: "I'm back home, grinding to bring back the gavels," Gluesenkamp Perez said in a statement.

• "I really don't have energy to worry about the hurt feelings of anonymous colleagues."

📰 Driving the news: Golden wrote an op-ed in a local newspaper in Rep. Mike Lawler's New York district endorsing the Republican for reelection.

• The endorsement comes after Golden and Gluesenkamp Perez repeatedly broke with party leadership on key procedural votes in recent weeks.
• The repeated defections have sparked enormous anger within the House Democratic caucus, with some lawmakers calling to punish Golden and Gluesenkamp Perez.

💬 What they're saying: "That endorsement should get Mike an additional three votes — comprising most of the New Yorkers who have ever heard of Jared Golden," Rep. Sam Liccardo (D-Calif.) told us.

• A third House Democrat who spoke on the condition of anonymity said similarly: "I don't think it's going to help Lawler. The people in that district who know who Golden is already know who they are voting for."

Share this story

— Andrew Solender