
<p>Among political pundits and the public, there is an assumption that the amount of money in a campaign fund is a major factor in the outcome. ; Yes, it is good to have more money than an opponent, but it is not the most important factor by a long shot.</p>



<p>Analyses that make that connection fail to consider THE most important factor in determining the outcome of political races – incumbency. ; More than 80 percent of all incumbents win re-election – even facing opponents with more money. ; However, incumbents almost always have the most money. ; When an incumbent is beaten it is more often than not that the winner had less money than the incumbent.</p>



<p>There is also the reality that a campaign can have too much money. ; There comes a point of diminishing returns on the money invested. Hypothetically, if a candidate can effectively flood the market with $18 million, an opponent with $30 million does not have as great a benefit as the cash advantage suggests.</p>



<p>I raise this issue because the Cook Report said that the Democrat incumbents in several key battleground states have campaign funds much larger than their Republican opponents. ; The three states rated as the best prospects for a Republican victory are Nevada, Georgia, and Arizona.</p>



<p>In the end-of-June filing, Nevada Democrat Senator Catherine Cortez Masto had almost $10 million in the bank – compared to barely over $2 million for Republican challenger Adam Laxalt. On the other hand, Laxalt has one of the most famous political names in Nevada.</p>



<p>Money also makes less difference when the issues are highly controversial and heated. ; In such cases, the public Is more attuned and more motivated. ; The number of ads or brochures becomes relatively unimportant.</p>



<p>The greatest money advantage goes to Democrat incumbent Mark Kelly in Arizona. ; He has a $25-million-dollar fund. ; Much larger than any of the Republicans running in the GOP primary.  ; The top two contenders are Trump-backed Blake Masters and businessman Jim Lamon, a self-funded candidate. ; There Is no knowing how much he will invest in his own campaign. ; Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich is the only candidate who has won a statewide race, but only has $500,000 in the bank.</p>



<p>In the critical Pennsylvania race, where Dr. Oz is defending the seat held by Republican Senator Toomey Oz is very competitive moneywise. ; Oz has loaned his campaign about $3 million compared to Democrat John Fetterman’s $5 million. ; But that is after both spent more than $10 million on their primary campaigns. ; ;</p>



<p>The Cook Report may make Democrats giddy for a day, but it has virtually no meaning in terms of the races themselves. ; There is a lot of time to raise money with the big PACs dumping dollars nearer the election – and I do not believe that money – or lack thereof – is going to decide any of these races.</p>



<p>So, there “tis.</p>



<p></p>

Democrats have money advantage in key Senate races. So what?
