Mississippi Senate Race Tightens With Attack Ads
Left 50%
Center 25%
Right 25%
2 left · 1 center · 1 right
What happened
Democrat Scott Colom, a Mississippi district attorney, is challenging Republican Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith in the state's 2026 U.S. Senate contest; Mississippi has not elected a Democrat to the Senate since 1982 and has the nation's highest share of Black voters, nearly 40 percent of the electorate. In the closing weeks, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee spent $500,000 supporting Colom, the Senate Majority PAC reserved $1.2 million in advertising, and former Vice President Kamala Harris and former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg have visited or are scheduled to appear, including a Buttigieg rally on the Gulf Coast. Republicans countered with a seven-figure advertising reservation from the Senate Leadership Fund, and President Donald Trump rallied for Hyde-Smith in Corinth, Mississippi, telling voters to "pretend that I'm on the ballot" and that he was there because "Cindy is doing great, but I've just got to make sure." AdImpact data showed that over the past week only one of the eight most-aired television spots portrayed Hyde-Smith positively; the most-aired ad, paid for by the left-leaning New Deal for All super PAC (more than $329,000 and over 1,200 airings), featured Jeffrey Epstein survivor Jena-Lisa Jones attacking Hyde-Smith over a 51-49 Senate vote the prior year that indefinitely postponed an amendment requiring full release of the Epstein files, which Hyde-Smith said was a procedural vote and "not the same thing as saying the Epstein files should remain secret." Hyde-Smith's campaign had spent more than $854,000 on an ad calling Colom a "transgender defender" and "the most radical Senate candidate of our lifetime," later cutting that spend below $150,000 between October 19 and 26, and during the Biden administration she blocked Colom's nomination to a Mississippi federal district judgeship; Hyde-Smith is still expected to win, though the race is far tighter than previously expected.
Sourcing check · Mostly on the record · 4 articles
2 of 4 articles cite a named source for the story. It was on the record from the first report.
What these terms mean and how they're counted
- On the record · names a source 2 of 4
- On the record means the article cites a source by name for the story's main claim: a person, or an institution speaking officially, such as a company statement or a named agency's spokesperson. The opposite is an unnamed source. The count is how many of the counted articles cite at least one such source; the names are everyone named across them, each once however the articles spell it. Here: Senate Majority PAC, Jake Monssen, Scott Colom and Cindy Hyde-Smith
- Primary evidence · cites a document or data 0 of 4
- Primary evidence means the article cites a record you could check yourself: a court filing or ruling, a dataset or report, a recording or transcript, an official statement or press release, market data. A quote is not a document. The count is how many articles cite one. Here: None cited.
- Credits another outlet 0 of 4
- The article says the story comes from another outlet's reporting (“first reported by Reuters”). Those articles relay the story; they are not independent confirmation. Here: Each article presents its own reporting.
- Unnamed sources 1 of 4
- The main claim is attributed to people who are not identified: “people familiar with the matter”, “officials said”. The count is how many articles do this. Here: e.g. “a GOP political operative”
- How it developed
- When the first report landed and whether it named anyone; when the first named source and the first document appeared. Here: First report Oct 27, 15:27 UTC by Fox News, naming its source.
- Not counted 0
- Opinion, analysis and video pieces, and articles too short to assess. Every count above is out of the counted articles. An article republished under a new headline is one article.
This is about who is cited, not whether the story is true. Each source below says what it names. How we count
Omitted — what each side leaves out
Unpacked
The two sides are not describing the same Democratic play. Left-leaning coverage reports a $500,000 DSCC ad about Colom's work as a district attorney. Right-leaning coverage reports a $1.2 million Senate Majority PAC reservation plus visits from Harris and Buttigieg, and never mentions that prosecutor spot. A reader of one learns about biography. A reader of the other learns about a national last-minute blitz.
The same challenger is introduced in opposite terms. Left-leaning coverage sells Colom on his "record as a district attorney." Right-leaning coverage, quoting Hyde-Smith's campaign manager, says he is "bankrolled by the radical left."
What is actually the most-aired ad in Mississippi, and does it match either portrait of the race?
Bottom line
Fox News never printed the DSCC's $500,000 bio-ad figure that The Hill led with. The Hill never printed the larger Schumer-tied reservation Fox treated as the story.
The receipts — 3 facts one side's coverage lacks
- Hyde-Smith blocked Colom's nomination to serve as a Mississippi district court judge during the Biden administration
- An Epstein-survivor ad attacking Hyde-Smith was the most-aired spot of the closing week, running more than 1,200 times
- Only one of the eight most-aired spots in the closing stretch portrays Hyde-Smith positively
The Left View
Left-leaning coverage presents the DSCC expenditure as Democrats investing in Colom around his record as a district attorney in Mississippi, with a new ad on that tenure and Colom saying he will "take on anyone who stands in the way of what's best" for the state.
The Right View
Right-leaning coverage portrays the late Democratic spending and high-profile visits as a stretch in a Republican stronghold, quoting a GOP operative that Democrats are "just throwing s— at the wall" and Hyde-Smith campaign manager Jake Monssen that "This is simply Washington insiders making a last-ditch effort to give life to Scott Colom's failing campaign." Republicans argue Colom "is bankrolled by the radical left because he is in lockstep with their agenda," citing tax increases, open borders, taxpayer benefits for illegal immigrants, and "sex change surgeries for minors," and an NRSC spokeswoman said the campaign is "backed by Chuck Schumer, funded by George Soros, and built on pro-transgender and other far-left policies." Colom told Fox News Digital that "the people of Mississippi built this campaign," that Hyde-Smith "refuses to debate, she doesn't campaign," and that he is motivated by "the betrayal of the America First movement" on grocery prices, not the blocked judgeship, which he said he had forgiven.
Our Take (balanced)
The left's strongest argument is that Democrats are treating the contest as genuinely live—committee and PAC reservations into seven figures, national figures on the ground, and independent ad tracking that shows Hyde-Smith outspent and out-aired in the final week, including an Epstein-files attack as the most-run spot—aligned with center reporting that the race is "far tighter than anyone expected." The right's strongest argument is that history and the state's Trump alignment still govern: no Democratic senator since 1982, a GOP seven-figure reply and a presidential rally, and the same center reporting's judgment that Hyde-Smith is still expected to win, which Republicans read as proof the play is "a reach, at best." The central unresolved tension is whether late national money and a more competitive air war can convert Colom's local ground operation into enough additional votes to beat that structural Republican advantage, or whether the surge mainly creates a momentum narrative without overturning the outcome.
4 sources
More stories
The week's bottom lines, in your inbox
One email a week: the five stories that mattered and what they actually mean. Free.