EMILY’s List to spend $37M on midterms

EMILY’s List leader Stephanie Schriock said on Monday that the group plans to spend $37 million backing its preferred candidates in November’s midterm elections.

The group, whose goal is to elect Democratic women who back abortion rights, has already spent more than $14 million during the 2018 primary season, with the national number of female nominees hitting a record high this year.

{mosads}The additional $23 million will be used on digital and TV advertising as well as mailers in the final weeks before Election Day. Schriock said Monday that she believes the enthusiasm among women will help Democrats flip the 23 seats needed to take back the House.

“It really energized the Democratic voting base and brought new voters into the system,” Schriock told reporters at a Monday press briefing.

“I have all intentions of this instituition delivering the U.S. House for the Democrats.”

EMILY’s List has touted their role in recruiting and training female candidates, many of whom are political newcomers, in a year that’s being dubbed as another “Year of the Woman.”

Schriock said the organization trained more than 5,000 women who ran for office up and down the ballot this cycle. She also noted that the group is already recruiting and training candidates looking to run in the 2020 cycle.

This cycle, women candidates — from both sides of the aisle — have hit a record high for the number nominated in primaries for Senate, House and governors’ races across the country.

In the House, both parties set records, with Democrats nominating 182 female candidates and Republicans nominating 53. EMILY’s List is backing 64 House incumbents and candidates.

And both parties nominated a total of 22 women to run for Senate, with the previous record at 18 women nominated in 2012. EMILY’s List has endorsed 12 Democratic incumbents and candidates for Senate.

But with so many races on the November ballot, Schriock acknowledges that they’re monitoring where their resources can be most effective, and where they might have to potentially divert resources if some races become out-of-reach for Democrats.

“It’s an everyday conversation here about where we can make the most influence,” Schriock said.

“We have to be strategic with these dollars. We’re definitely known to take long shots, to take risks,” she added. “But we have to see path, and if something collapses on a race, and those happen … we’ll make those hard decisions.”