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 ?