In American politics, the one who spends the most almost always wins

[BurtWorm]

Is that ever going to change? Is there any reform realistically possible to force a change?

http://feeds.dailykos.com/dailykos/index?m=3350


November, by the Numbers

Tracking poll numbers is one way to determine if we'll win back the Congress in November. Tracking money is another.

* In 2000, 85% of the Senate races were won by the candidate who spent the most money. For the House, the money-victory correlation was even higher, with candidates who outspent their opponents enjoying a 94% success rate.

* In 2002, about 95% of House races and 76% of Senate races were won by the candidate who spent the most money.

* In 2004, the same predictable pattern. In 95% of House races and 91% of Senate races, the candidate who had the most dollars won.

It's not just a question of message--it's a question of spending the resources to get the message to the American people. Republicans have long outraised and outspent Democrats (thus, we find ourselves with a Republican majority.) But this year, the NRCC's spending itch may actually help us regain the House.

For example, last December, in CA-48, the NRCC dropped a quarter million dollars in a district where Bush won by 18%. The Democratic candidate, Steve Young, did not win the special election but forcing the NRCC to spend that money. In OH-02, a 70% Republican district, we saw the NRCC pour half a million dollars into what was long considered a safe Republican seat. Did the Democrats expect to win either seat, given the districts' Republican history? No. But with the GOP so weak and so scared, any semblance of Democratic opposition--futile or not--causes it to reach into its coffers at an alarming rate.

And that is the brilliance of a fight-in-every-district strategy. When we make every district competitive, we make the NRCC hemorrhage. We bleed it slowly and cripple its effectiveness by forcing it to pour millions into rock-solid Republican districts, making less money available to the truly competitive seats.

[BurtWorm]

1. kick

[AndyTiedye]

2. But You Need to Count All The Money The Republicans Don't Have to Spend…

…because they get so much FREE advertising on every network every day.
That was worth a few $BILLION (with a B) in the last election cycle.
Think we're ever going to be able to match that? :rofl:

[BurtWorm]

3. True indeed.

:evilfrown:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

4. That's an indication of the existant oligarchy masquerading as a democracy

And, why the system needs to be fixed, or overturned.

[JStuart]

5. money...

exactly why Hillary Clinton is the nominee for 08. No doubt. She has the $$ she has the organization, she has hubby. She will lose. She's even unpopular with the base. Dean had a better shot than Kerry in 04, and should push again. Clark and Dean are the only TWO "electable" candidates. Clark can pull the moderate right in and Dean can motivate the entire DEMOCRATIC party and pull in some "not previously involved" or disaffected voters.

[The2ndWheel]

6. Who makes, and has made, the rules?

The wealthy are going to reform themselves out of power?

If only we could sail west, found a country, and not kill anyone this time.

[Freddie Stubbs]

7. And what would stop us from hemorrhaging money pursuing

this strategy?