No amount of money can overcome a dreadful, unlawful, Marxist narcissist in the White House who explicitly nationalized his failures.
??????????????????????????????????????????????????
State by state, it’s a different story.
In Alabama, my home state....there was virtually no money spent by the state apparatus on any candidate for any office. The mailers that got sent out....were paid for by individual candidates. Otherwise, nothing.
I think at least a dozen states saw virtually no DC or national committee funding come down to them. For this reason, I think six to twelve months ago....they already considered it a loss and just looked the other way unless they saw a decent senate race to put money into.
If I were a southern Democrat...I’d already go and write off 2016 for any significant office within the state. Personally, I’d be kinda upset with the President and the national committee (his people mostly running it). It’s almost like a designed project....put down as many Democrats as possible and bring a massive Republican apparatus to the national capital and to state capitals.
I would wager that the LA Times story is disinformation.
Money tends to follow incumbents, and the big money Senate races had a lot more Democrat incumbents.
They spent plenty but lost big.
If ever there was one, this election was about policies, and America just spat Obama's out in a huge way.
The imposter and chief who felt it his job to level the playing field and Fundamentally change America was thwarted by AMERICANS!
I stopped reading before I got past the first sentence!
Democrats have been money WHORES for years, for this author to suggest that Democrats just now started accepting union and hedge-fund monies, they are LYING!!
There was so much money spent on mailers that was just wasted effort. The Saturday before the election I received 37 mailers. All of them were expensive three color ads on glossy paper and non of them really said anything. I took a quick scan through them for anything of interest and then threw them in the trash.
Most of the money was tax payer money that had been funneled off through “stimulus” and other corrupt schemes.
A percentage had to come back to the democrats; thus, 30,000 a plate fundraisers, etc. that then is plowed back into the engine to try to gain more corrupt politicians.
Fortunately, we were able to gum up that motor this election.
The money excuse.
Expected this one sooner.
Democrats should have probably gone back to their old business model of just paying people directly to vote for them instead of wasting money on TV ads and slick cardboard mailers.
But according to them, they're the underfunded everyman in every single election, yet they still win a lot of them, so that can't be their problem in this one.
That account's been overdrawn since the first Clinton term.
There was an editorial in the WSJ yesterday, with the author’s point being “how little” was spent on the Mid-term election campaigns. His opening reference point was a single major consumer company’s expenditures just for advertizing, which all by itself was many times more than what was spent on dozens of politicians campaigns in 2014.
His larger point referred to the growth in campaign spending and a study that traced that with the growth in the federal budget - the two forms of increased spending fairly well track in sync with each other.
And it makes sense. The more the public is asked to “invest” in the government doing things and controlling things, the more political candidates will invest in being the ones who will do the allocating of all the things the government involves itself in.
If you really want less money in politics, then get the government out of doing and controlling so much.
The Demonrats lost because Republicans, Independents, and some Dems voted like their lives depended on it—which they did.