Will there come a point at which a politician doesn't need to spend the most money,

[hedgehog]

but rather, needs to spend enough money in the right places? What I'm thinking of is the effect of diminishing returns - most money seems to be spent saturating television (with fewer people watching and only so much time available), annoying people with robocalls, sending out flyers and posting signs with slogans, etc. Are we approaching an age in which voters are reached through the internet? On the internet, does it matter how much you spend, or whether people like ( or dislike) what you have to say to make the message go viral?I don't think Romney ever recovered from his 47% remark once it hit the Net.

I think Elizabeth Warren really got people's attention with her "There is nobody in this country that got rich on their own," of-the cuff speech.

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/09/video-elizabeth-warrens-you-didnt-build-speech

I don't think either candidate spent a penny on those clips, but they're what I recall from recent elections.

[enlightenment]

1. Doubtful.

Money has somehow been tied to worth - a "good" candidate will raise more money than a "bad" candidate.

Frankly, I'm waiting for the point where we no longer vote for candidates, but the size of their war chest.