When Democrats spend extra and win, the marketing campaign finance benefit does not come up as usually. Like in Virginia.
A. Barton Hinkle writes:
Political consultants have cited many causes for Democrat Ralph Northam’s big win in Tuesday’s elections. Credit score has gone to the state’s altering demographics. And to excessive voter turnout. And to loathing for Donald Trump, which helped drive turnout. Some on the appropriate blamed Republican Ed Gillespie not being Trumpian sufficient.
One rationalization was conspicuous by its absence, nevertheless: cash.
Within the closing weeks of the marketing campaign, Northam loved a 2-1 benefit in financing: He went into October with $5.7 million in his pocket, in comparison with Gillespie’s $2.5 million. By the point the polls closed, Northam had spent $32 million to Gillespie’s $23 million.
Northam additionally bought loads of assist. The League of Conservation Voters spent greater than $1 million to assist him out. Deliberate Parenthood’s Virginia affiliate kicked in $three million. Environmentalist Tom Steyer threw in one other $2 million, Michael Bloomberg’s gun management group added greater than $1 million, a gaggle affiliated with Barack Obama added $1 million extra, and so forth. Why hasn’t this “exterior cash” been cited as an element within the race—or as proof that “cash buys elections”?