GOP wins can’t save them from their huge losses 'where it matters most'

President Donald Trump attends a cabinet meeting at the White House in Washington, D.C., December 2, 2025. REUTERS/Brian Snyder

There is ultimately one factor that 'decides elections,' and according to a new op-ed from The Hill, the GOP's other wins cannot save it from the ground it is losing when it comes to that factor, as Democrats prevail "where it matters most."

Michael Kapp is a veteran member of the Democratic National Committee, currently serving on its Rules and Bylaws Committee. On Wednesday, he published a piece for The Hill, tackling the emerging narrative about Republicans' massive fundraising hauls equating to a secret political weapon and a troublesome weakness for Democrats. This, he argued, ignores the key realities of "what is actually happening on the ground."

"Political media have developed a bad habit of confusing financial reporting with political strength," Kapp wrote. "Fundraising totals, cash-on-hand figures, and quarterly comparisons are useful data points, but they are increasingly being treated as a proxy for overall party performance. Today, they are being used to construct a narrative of Democratic weakness that does not reflect what is actually happening on the ground."

Kapp tackled the emerging notion that the DNC is facing a fundraising "crisis" due to the gap that currently exists between it and the RNC, arguing that these claims ignore some key context about Trump's fundraising system.

"One of the most persistent misconceptions in media coverage is that the DNC is facing a fundraising crisis or operating from a position of financial weakness. That is not accurate," Kapp explained. "In 2025, the Republican National Committee raised about 16 percent more than the DNC. This gap is often presented as evidence of structural weakness, but it is frequently reported without the broader political context in which it occurs."

He added: "Republicans currently control the White House. They have an administration openly operating with a corrupt kind of transactional politics where major donors fear their licenses, mergers and regulatory approvals may suffer if they don’t stay on President Trump’s good side. Democrats do not have that leverage, nor would we want to operate that way."

Kapp further argued that a true crisis of fundraising might lead to a situation in which Democrats are underperforming in elections. In fact, he countered, they are overperforming, either winning outright or coming much closer to Republicans in unexpected areas, giving the party a real edge in concrete electoral success.

"In Iowa, Democrats broke the Republican legislative supermajority and elected multiple firsts in state legislative history," Kapp detailed. "In Nebraska, Democrats flipped the Omaha mayor’s office after nearly two decades. In Mississippi, Democrats broke the Republican supermajority in the state Senate. In Texas, Democrats achieved a stunning 31-point swing in a district Trump had won comfortably just a year earlier. And in Florida, Democrats flipped the House District that includes Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago. These are not symbolic victories. They are measurable electoral outcomes tied directly to Martin’s and the DNC’s investments in staffing, recruitment, organizing and long-term state party capacity."

He concluded: "At its core, this is not a debate about whether Democrats should raise more or spend less. It is a debate about whether Democratic power must be rebuilt from scratch every cycle, or whether the party finally invests in the infrastructure needed to win consistently over time. And on that question, constant Democratic overperformance in elections speaks for itself. You can measure Democratic success in fundraising or you can measure it in wins, but only one of those decides elections. "

From Your Site Articles