Others, however, point to the various lavishly funded campaigns that have fallen flat, like Meg Whitman’s, Steve Forbes’s or Rick Perry’s. Anecdotes aside, political scientists have found that the relationship between campaign spending and election results is decidedly thorny. The difficulty stems from a general pattern in House and Senate elections: On average, the more challengers spend, the more they win. But the same is not true for incumbents. The more incumbents spend, the more likely they are to lose.
Source: A Campaign Dollar’s Power Is More Valuable to a Challenger - NYTimes.com
