Katie McGinty

Win or lose, the congressional contests helped escalate the cost of the 2016 election. Outside and candidate spending combined
A poll says that Joe Sestak, whom Democrats spent millions of dollars to beat, would be doing better now than Senate nominee Katie McGinty.
Decades ago -- in the eighties, when I was in my early twenties -- a bumper sticker on my tan economy car read: "A Woman's Place Is In The White House."
It's an open secret in the political world that most congressional contests are not contests at all; incumbents tend to raise more money than challengers, and better-funded campaigns almost always win. In some of the most expensive Senate races this cycle, however, challengers are attracting more money from outside spending groups than incumbents, and it may be making a difference.
Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.), who still won't affirm whether he supports Trump, refused to answer the question three times.
Pennsylvania's local governments suffered huge losses because of risky swap deals, but Toomey pushed to let banks keep giving them bad advice.
Races in Pennsylvania and New Hampshire are well on their way to costing more than $100 million each.
It's only a slight lead for Katie McGinty, but it seems to be holding.
One of the most important Senate battles before us today is the race between Pennsylvania's Katie McGinty, Democrat, and Pat Toomey, Republican.
“It’s been a very hard old boys network to crack."
Outside spending groups have poured more than $20.4 million so far into Pennsylvania's Senate race between Republican incumbent Pat Toomey and Democrat Katie McGinty, putting it close behind Ohio's Senate race, at $21.8 million, for the most outside spending in a congressional contest.
To anyone who follows politics, the Koch brothers are best known for spearheading a sprawling network of groups that invest millions in conservative, libertarian-leaning candidates and causes.