Ask Politico: What Is Money Good For, in Politics?

Remember the Connecticut primaries , when Linda McMahon won the Republican Senate nomination because she was rich, but Ned Lamont lost the Democratic gubernatorial nomination despite the fact that he was rich? Well, now Politico has a new batch of information to explain exactly how money determines outcomes in our political system:

Florida Rep. Allen Boyd ( winner ):

less-than-convincing 51 percent victory came after plowing nearly $2.2 million into his campaign

Arizona Sen. John McCain ( winner ):

$21 million blitzkrieg ultimately rendered [his opponent] an unacceptable alternative

Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski ( possible loser ):

Not a single public poll showed Miller within striking distance of Murkowski in the weeks before the primary, and she spent more than ten times as much as he spent.

Florida Senate candidate Jeff Greene ( loser ):

lost the Democratic Senate nomination to Rep. Kendrick Meek by an overwhelming margin, trailing by 25 percentage points after outspending Meek by tens of millions of dollars.

Florida gubernatorial candidate Mike McCalister ( loser ):

McCalister, who had spent less than $8,000 through July, captured 10 percent of the vote in the gubernatorial primary, garnering more than 130,000 votes despite having no TV presence and being barred from debates.

Florida gubernatorial candidate Rick Scott ( winner ):

Scott spent $50 million of his fortune to defeat not only McCollum but also some of the most powerful forces in Florida and national Republican politics.

Politico further reports that with the multimillionaire Scott going on to the general election, the national Republican Party is free to spend the money it would have spent in Florida in other states. Where that money will definitely do…something or other. Win or lose, it’ll be decisive!