Comments on: Can Republicans “Buy” the House?

By: Matthew Dickinson

Matthew Dickinson — Fri, 15 Oct 2010 22:45:51 +0000

Will,

Keep in mind that Angle cut into that gap with her most recent fundraising haul that netted $14 million so, although Reid most likely still leads in the fundraising total, I’m not sure by how much. But your general point is well taken – at this point it’s doubtful that additional money raised is going to have much difference in this race, since both candidates are well known, unless that money somehow translates into a turnout advantage. My guess, however, is that the media market is pretty well saturated.

By: Will Woodworth

Will Woodworth — Fri, 15 Oct 2010 21:51:02 +0000

I wonder if the dead heat in the Reid-Angle race, even given disparity in fundraising, gives us any indication of the impact of money on the outcome of Senate races (or U.S. political contests in general)? Clearly, there is some minimum amount that a candidate must raise to have wide name-recognition and be viable. But, is it possible that once the threshold is reached, additional funds have a decreasingly substantial impact on the outcome? Perhaps the lag in support for Reid in contrast to his fundrasing lead is just an expression of how angry Nevada voters really are, but the sixfold gap gave me pause.

By: Orion Lewis

Orion Lewis — Thu, 14 Oct 2010 19:31:43 +0000

Interesting point about competitive races driving spending. Makes sense. Here is the data from the Wesleyan Media Project on campaign spending on television ads over the five week period Spet-Oct: http://election-ad.research.wesleyan.edu/press-releases/

It appears that ad spending is up almost across the board, including candidate spending, when compared to 2008. However, it does look like interest group spending on house races is up a pretty hefty 200% compared to 08.