and it's a good argument for fielding a candidate *everywhere*.

a challenger in a red district can run a race with all volunteers, or relatively minimal spending, and force the republicans to divert funds from other races into that "safe" district.

special elections are nearly always "one-offs", but this shows that it was very cost-effective for us, even if we lost.

republican interests have to allocate the money they raise to a lot of different races, and if we can force them to divert a lot more than we spend on their own "safe" districts, then we'll do better in the more competitive districts that they then have to fight with less money remaining.

There isn't.

I hope all their dark money bleeds them dry.

Now it's merely a good strategy. In any event, we need to drive up the cost of buying bad government.

I got these figures from an article in yesterday's NYT, which I am unable to find online (often this happens because they make the title of the print article different from that of the online article). At any rate:

Ossoff had a total of about $31.2 million; Handel totaled $22.5 million. The difference was where the money came from. And this should teach us a lesson about funding local Congressional elections:

In direct campaign donations, Ossoff raised a whopping $23.6 million, Handel only $4.5 million—but the vast majority of his money was from individuals outside of the state. Outside of Georgia, donations to Osoff came largely from CA, NY, and MA—huge amounts—with smaller amounts from a host of other states all around the country.

Outside money was almost the reverse. 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." Ossoff, on the other hand, had only a total of $7.6 million, mostly from the DCCC and only $2 million from "other groups."

So how to analyze all this? In my opinion, it's dangerous to flood a campaign directly with donations from individual donors from outside the district and, more especially, outside the state. Better to donate to outside groups such as the DCCC and DNC, or to one of the many progressive organizations or super PACS that are out there.

I think local voters not only resent these outside attempts to get involved in what they see as their own unique business, but it rallies the opposition to outperform, just to retain their local identity (in this case, a solidly red district that hasn't had a Democrat since 1979). 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.

So y'all get over your antipathy toward the DCCC, DNC, and DSCC and next time, if you want to influence a Congressional election, give it to them, or to an organization—not to the campaign (though that's fine if it's a race in your own state). People don't like it when those latte liberals from California start getting all up in their business down in Georgia.