But I don't think we particularly help when we pour in money to a local campaign from the outside. There was an article today in the NYT, complete with graphs (print version; I can't find it for you online, probably because it has a different headline). Just to sum it up, in direct campaign donations, Ossoff raised a whopping $23.6 million, Handel only $4.5 million—but the vast majority of Ossoff's was from out of state. Outside of Georgia, these donations to Osoff came largely from CA, NY, and MA—huge amounts—with smaller amounts from a host of other states.
I think people not only resent these outside attempts to get involved in what locals see as their own unique business, but it rallies the opposition to outperform, just to retain their local identity. I think that the funds the parties raise to help (DNC, RNC) are seen as less intrusive, because voters tend to understand that parties are meant to support their own candidates in races across the country. But most effective of all is money from outside sources—super PACs. They can be totally anonymous. So while we think they're wrong, they work.
In total outside money—that is to say, money from party committees and super PACS—Handel had the huge advantage. She had more than $18.2 million, equally from the Congressional Leadership Fund, the NRCC, and "other groups," whereas Ossoff had only a total of $7.6 million, mostly from the DCCC and only $2 million from "other groups."
Both candidates got a lot of money, but the sources were different. Our people-powered national funding may work for a presidential election, but in state or Congressional elections, I think it backfires. Better to send your check or online donation to the DCCC or an interest-group PAC (Vote Vets, etc.) than directly to a local candidates campaign is my conclusion. We have to get over this reluctance to donate to the DNC, DSCC, and DCCC in favor of making donations to individual campaigns. Institutions work, and especially when it comes to local races.
All this said, the Republicans should not take so much solace from their win here, and we should not so much despair: In a district that the Republican won by 23 points in 2016, the Democrat lost by a margin of less than 4 points just a year later. To me, that's a bit of a victory and a sign of rise. While winner takes all, of course, in gaining a House seat, we still made huge strides here.
= new reply since forum marked as read
