- Joined
- Dec 17, 2014
- Messages
- 8,385
- Reaction score
- 1
Cruz is a mainstay, a veteran senator with huge clout in a strongly favorable state. Not beating him doesn't necessarily say anything at all about his opposition.
Losing isn't kind of like winning, since the absolute result is that one person holds power and the other does not. But that doesn't determine whether a campaign was more effective than it would have been on average, and it doesn't explain why it was more effective. Money is a part of effective campaigning, but again, it's more that winners attract money than money making winners.
There is no reality where you are given 90 million and the media in a hostile state race. In order to have gotten the 90 million and the media, you would have had to have been a strong candidate, and would have attracted that attention, and the basic demographics would have to support you.
Let's put it another way. Say I give a random, lefty Democrat a billion dollars to bombard you with ads. That isn't going to get your vote. It's probably not even going to budge you. But say a Democrat comes along who actually makes a lot of sense to you, and who you see as a good politician and a good candidate despite being something other than Republican. What would have made the difference to you in that case? Money? No. It would have taken money to reach your ears and eyes, but on top of that, extra money wouldn't do very much.
Man reading the opinions here of the left. It wouldn’t be hard to sway the feeble minds I converse here with. Much less having 90M to do it