Advertising may no longer matter for national races, but in these small fry districts, McConnell can ‘nationalize’ the money pouring in at a ratio of 10:1 and prevail.
____________
That was last year. The world really is speeding up, thanks mainly to the internet.
Alabama is a small fry state by many metrics:gross earnings, population, *diversity*, cultural relevancy, preconceived notions. Ask McConnell how well money did electing a sitting Senator with a Presidential endorsement in a primary for the dominant party.
We aren’t in Kansas anymore.
In 2014, Huelskamp raised and spent $845k for both the primary and general election...but in 2016, his $945k spent only on the primary could not surpass his opponent's $1.6 million, PLUS $3 Million in PAC money...an amount of PAC money that was 10 times the amount of outside spending spent on the previous election.
Huelskamp was not prepared for it at all...and I have to emphasize, the ads just simply lied. They painted Huelskamp as the establishment candidate...I hope this is all making sense: McConnell controlled PACS (the establishment) flooded a race with PAC money (the PAC money alone was triple what Hueslkamp raised), and bought ads that said Huelskamp was the establishment candidate.
It was a dirty ambush, made possible by large spending. I firmly believe that any primary, but especially a primary that is safely republican (and therefore hasn't seen alot of campaign money being raised in the past) could fall victim to this.