Big-money bust could alter the landscape

Recent primary results in both parties have raised a striking question for campaign strategists and political donors: does having a far larger ad budget still guarantee victory? Political analysts point to a string of races where candidates with overwhelming advertising advantages lost to opponents who spent a fraction of what their rivals did.

The pattern calls back to a high-profile example two years ago, when Vice President Kamala Harris spent more than $1 billion during a 107‑day presidential bid yet failed to gain positive traction on Election Day. According to exit polls cited by the campaign’s critics, Harris’s favorables were 46 percent and unfavorables 52 percent — nearly identical to Donald Trump’s 46 percent to 53 percent — and she lost all seven competitive presidential states even as Democratic Senate candidates won four of five contests in those states. As one commentator on the Democratic National Committee’s post‑election review put it, “Democrats do not have a money problem; it’s a strategy problem,” language later echoed by other analysts.

Recent primaries that bucked the spending expectation

Several recent primaries provide concrete examples where the size of advertising war chests did not translate into victory. In Michigan’s Democratic Senate primary, Abdul El‑Sayed defeated Rep. Haley Stevens by roughly 1 percentage point despite a 10‑to‑1 ad spending advantage for Stevens. Data compiled by Kinetiq Political Insights and reported by Axios show advertising for or on behalf of El‑Sayed at about $5.2 million, compared with $52 million for Stevens.

One week later in Minnesota, progressive lieutenant governor Peggy Flanagan beat Rep. Angie Craig by roughly 20 points. Advertising tracked for and by Flanagan totaled about $3.3 million, while Craig’s spending was about $13.8 million — a roughly 4‑to‑1 advantage that failed to secure a win for the better‑funded candidate.

Florida’s Democratic Senate primary produced a similar mismatch between spending and outcome. Alexander Vindman, a prominent figure during the first Trump impeachment, was expected to win the Democratic nomination, and his campaign spent roughly $2.2 million on advertising. Angie Nixon, considered a long shot, spent approximately $60,000 on ads, according to a New York Times review of AdImpact data — a staggering roughly 37‑to‑1 spending gap — yet Nixon prevailed by about 12 points.

Money’s diminishing predictive power was not limited to Democrats. In Texas, Attorney General Ken Paxton won the Republican Senate runoff by about 28 points against Sen. John Cornyn, despite Cornyn’s $58.8 million in advertising compared with roughly $8.2 million for Paxton, as tracked by Kinetiq. Cornyn led the first round of voting by a narrow margin but fell short in the runoff.

Totals and what they imply

Adding together the four contests, advertising spending for the eventual winners totaled approximately $16.8 million, while spending for the losing, better‑funded candidates reached about $126.8 million — an overall advantage of roughly $110 million for the losers, with three of the four losing by double digits. Those figures are drawn from the Kinetiq and AdImpact data reported in the original analysis of these races.

Political operatives and media coverage have long treated fundraising and ad buys as key indicators of a campaign’s viability. But these results suggest that money is a resource, not a substitute for a campaign’s messaging, strategy or voter connection. As one analyst summarized the shift, “These campaigns didn’t have a money problem, they had a strategy problem.”

Campaigns and the outlets that cover them may need to recalibrate expectations about the predictive power of large war chests, especially as some polling this season proved unreliable. The recent primary outcomes suggest voters responded to content and issues that resonated locally, rather than sheer volume of advertising. For donors and strategists, the takeaways are likely to include a renewed focus on message discipline, voter targeting and on‑the‑ground organization rather than assumptions that spending alone will carry a race.

David Winston is the president of The Winston Group and a longtime adviser to congressional Republicans. He previously served as the director of planning for Speaker Newt Gingrich. He advises Fortune 100 companies, foundations and nonprofit organizations on strategic planning and public policy issues, as well as serving as an election analyst for CBS News.