Posted by According to a review of campaign finance reports by the Associated Press, Democratic candidates for the state House and Senate are raising more campaign funds than their Republican counterparts by greater than a 2 to 1 margin.
… Democrats have raised more than $14.4 million in their effort to retain control of the 105-member House and 35-member Senate, compared to about $6.5 million raised by Republican candidates.
…
The survey found contributors mostly favor incumbent lawmakers, regardless of party affiliation. In contested races involving current lawmakers, the incumbent had raised more than the challenger in all but one race, House District 65 in southwest Alabama, where Democratic Party challenger Marc Keahey had raised about $70,000 to about $55,000 for incumbent Rep. Nick Williams, R-McIntosh.
This is not good news for the Republican hopes to take either chamber from the Democrats. As Dan at Between the Links noted after the primaries, the candidates with more money tend to win.
If I have enough time, I would love to do a “money odds” post with all of the competetive legislative races.
I am curious, however, how I should count spending in the general election. Should I count money spent during the primary or just money spent after the primary? What about races with no primary opponent?
That’s a hard call. I am inclined to believe that the amount spent during the primary is significant. It builds identity and name-recognition that does not go away after the primary election.
I remember reading that some candidates without primary opposition felt like they were starting the general election campaign at something of a disadvantage because their opponents (who had primary opposition) had already been campaigning hard and getting their names out.