Another Senate Race Is Slipping Away ?

[DB]

Masters was not a good candidate....period.

That he only lost by 5% tells you something.

I don't believe it was spending that cost him.

Kelly's ads/lies went unanswered - entirely due to spending.

"The ex-astronaut, who is married to former Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, is a prodigious fundraiser, and his campaign had raised more than $79 million and spent more than $73 million as of mid-October, when the most recent campaign finance reports were due.

By comparison, Masters had raised only $12 million and spent about $9.4 million."

https://www.azmirror.com/blog/the-arizona-senate-race-was-the-3rd-most-expensive-of-2022/

That's more than 7 to 1 in spending between the two.

[HikerGuy83]

Kelly's ads/lies went unanswered - entirely due to spending.

"The ex-astronaut, who is married to former Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, is a prodigious fundraiser, and his campaign had raised more than $79 million and spent more than $73 million as of mid-October, when the most recent campaign finance reports were due.

By comparison, Masters had raised only $12 million and spent about $9.4 million."

https://www.azmirror.com/blog/the-arizona-senate-race-was-the-3rd-most-expensive-of-2022/

That's more than 7 to 1 in spending between the two.

Missed my earlier post about Bloomberg ?

[Cyber Liberty]

Missed my earlier post about Bloomberg ?

Using an extreme to rebut another extreme dies not work.  Bloomberg proved excessive spending doesn't work, and Blake Masters proved that zero funding loses the race too.  The only commonality is both lost.  The two being comparable could not be farther from the truth.

[HikerGuy83]

Using an extreme to rebut another extreme dies not work.  Bloomberg proved excessive spending doesn't work, and Blake Masters proved that zero funding loses the race too.  The only commonality is both lost.  The two being comparable could not be farther from the truth.

The last I checked, Masters spent 14.5 million on his campaign.  I saw plenty of his adds not to mention 3rd party adds.

In doing a little reading, it seems the average senate winning senate campaign spent 11 million (which does not account for outside money).  I don't know how much wash pushed into campaigns for Masters, but articles would have you believe it was several million.

So, sorry.....there was no zero spend unless you want to redefine some words for us. 

And both Kelly and Bloomberg were extremes.

Or did Masters not spend 14.5 million as OpenSecrets reports.

In mid November, Masters went after McConnell for pulling adds saying that if McConnell had stayed in AZ, he'd (meaning Masters) would have won.

Nope....sorry Blake.

You NEVER moved the needle.

I doubt 100 million would have done the trick.

Farther from what (or whose) truth ? 

[Cyber Liberty]

I did not see a single Masters ad.  Not one, and I watch a lot.  I guess that's life away from the big city geniuses.

You can go ahead and be happy about 6 more years of Mark Kelly, but I will not.  Since Blake was a Federal candidate, this will never be rectified.  McConnell remains pleased as punch, and we watch the Republic slip sliding away.

[DB]

I did not see a single Masters ad.  Not one, and I watch a lot.  I guess that's life away from the big city geniuses.

You can go ahead and be happy about 6 more years of Mark Kelly, but I will not.  Since Blake was a Federal candidate, this will never be rectified.  McConnell remains pleased as punch, and we watch the Republic slip sliding away.

For at least a month I saw endless Kelly ads on Discovery channel (the only channel I watch with ads) and zero Masters ads. They went unanswered including the claim that Masters was against any form of birth control. It was only in the last week before the election I saw anything for Masters. And most people had voted by then.

[Free Vulcan]

The last I checked, Masters spent 14.5 million on his campaign.  I saw plenty of his adds not to mention 3rd party adds.

In doing a little reading, it seems the average senate winning senate campaign spent 11 million (which does not account for outside money).  I don't know how much wash pushed into campaigns for Masters, but articles would have you believe it was several million.

So, sorry.....there was no zero spend unless you want to redefine some words for us. 

And both Kelly and Bloomberg were extremes.

Or did Masters not spend 14.5 million as OpenSecrets reports.

In mid November, Masters went after McConnell for pulling adds saying that if McConnell had stayed in AZ, he'd (meaning Masters) would have won.

Nope....sorry Blake.

You NEVER moved the needle.

I doubt 100 million would have done the trick.

Farther from what (or whose) truth ?

I guess I'm not following your logic here. Somehow Masters should have overcome the huge spending deficit if he had been a better candidate.

But you don't define why he was a bad candidate.

[Bigun]

I guess I'm not following your logic here. Somehow Masters should have overcome the huge spending deficit if he had been a better candidate.

But you don't define why he was a bad candidate.

It is my opinion that Masters, like many others so called "Bad" candidates before him, was only bad because he did not ask for or receive the swamp's approval to run.

[HikerGuy83]

I guess I'm not following your logic here. Somehow Masters should have overcome the huge spending deficit if he had been a better candidate.

But you don't define why he was a bad candidate.

I have, in several places in this thread, pointed out where I thought he was weak. 

His abortion video's and his own web-sites wording was used against him pretty heavily. 

He then pulled the language from his site which only raised more eyebrows and allowed others to classify him as an opportunist.

There are several other things.

I certainly would have voted for him over Kelley (I had to vote in NM).

If the GOP runs someone like him against Sinema....kiss it good-bye.

[HikerGuy83]

It is my opinion that Masters, like many others so called "Bad" candidates before him, was only bad because he did not ask for or receive the swamp's approval to run.

Thank you for the qualifier up front.

[HikerGuy83]

You can go ahead and be happy about 6 more years of Mark Kelly, but I will not.

What are you talking about ?

Seriously. 

Who is "HAPPY" about Mark Kelly ?

I'd like to know just what you are referencing.

[HikerGuy83]

I guess I'm not following your logic here. Somehow Masters should have overcome the huge spending deficit if he had been a better candidate.

What does the spending equate to ?

As near as I can tell.....nothing.

Masters, never really moved the needle. 

Those who were with him at the start, were with him in the end. 

Kelly didn't sway them.

Just like Bloomberg found out.  You can spend a battleship full of money to put out a crappy message.  And you get the results of a crappy message.

So, yes....in the end.  Masters, like McSally lost...not because of money.  They were not great candidates and they inspired no-one.