Why are Democrats still addicted to campaign 'war chests'?

Where do Democrats get the idea that more money means more electoral results?

What's striking about the 6th District Georgia special election is how they placed all their faith in gobs and gobs of money – some $23 million – making it the most expensive special election in memory, all as a surefire means of picking up one extra congressional seat.

It failed miserably, as their golden boy candidate, 30-year-old documentary filmmaker Jon Ossoff, lost to Georgia secretary of state Karen Handel Tuesday.  But that's not the story.

It's that Democrats keep making the same mistake over and over and over again.

The political landscape is littered with these Ozymandias-style casualties of war chest politics, particularly in recent years.  Yet Democrats still seem wedded to this old model – the idea that the more money you throw at an election, the more likely you are to win.

Have these people forgotten some recent examples from the past?

Remember all the hype that was out there when Mitt Romney larded up his campaign coffers and hired pretty much every consultant in a bid to knock his competition out before the general election?  The idea was to intimidate his opponents into not even opposing him, given the money machine he had.

Well, after amassing $337 million on his own and a broader $1 billion with allied donations, Romney never quite made it to the presidency, losing with 48% of the vote to President Obama's 51%.  The giant war chest did him no good.

So maybe that should have been a lesson for Democrats.

No such luck.  If Romney couldn't persuade them, there was also Jeb Bush.

Jeb Bush amassed a $119-million war chest and like Romney was declared formidable, unbeatable.

He ended up with about two electoral college votes.  Seems the war chest strategy didn't work out for him, either.

But the lemmings keep moving off the cliff, so let's move to Hillary Clinton.

Clinton amassed $154 million in her initial war chest, and instead of it buying her the nomination, she spent the second half of the year fighting like the dickens against upstart Bernie Sanders to simply secure the nomination.

Big money didn't help her, either.

Yet Democrats are still pursuing this strategy.  They certainly did with the Jon Ossoff bid for Congress.

The one that was learned from the Trump campaign is that big money piles don't translate into results.  Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, showed, in fact, that the opposite could be true, running the Trump campaign on a shoestring.  He was known for running the campaign smart, not larded up, and that brought Trump the nomination.

But would Democrats ever bother to learn from that?  Not based on this Ossoff fiasco.  It's just too comfortable to keep doing the same thing over and over.  What's the word for that?  These days, the word is "Democrat."

Where do Democrats get the idea that more money means more electoral results?

What's striking about the 6th District Georgia special election is how they placed all their faith in gobs and gobs of money – some $23 million – making it the most expensive special election in memory, all as a surefire means of picking up one extra congressional seat.

It failed miserably, as their golden boy candidate, 30-year-old documentary filmmaker Jon Ossoff, lost to Georgia secretary of state Karen Handel Tuesday.  But that's not the story.

It's that Democrats keep making the same mistake over and over and over again.

The political landscape is littered with these Ozymandias-style casualties of war chest politics, particularly in recent years.  Yet Democrats still seem wedded to this old model – the idea that the more money you throw at an election, the more likely you are to win.

Have these people forgotten some recent examples from the past?

Remember all the hype that was out there when Mitt Romney larded up his campaign coffers and hired pretty much every consultant in a bid to knock his competition out before the general election?  The idea was to intimidate his opponents into not even opposing him, given the money machine he had.

Well, after amassing $337 million on his own and a broader $1 billion with allied donations, Romney never quite made it to the presidency, losing with 48% of the vote to President Obama's 51%.  The giant war chest did him no good.

So maybe that should have been a lesson for Democrats.

No such luck.  If Romney couldn't persuade them, there was also Jeb Bush.

Jeb Bush amassed a $119-million war chest and like Romney was declared formidable, unbeatable.

He ended up with about two electoral college votes.  Seems the war chest strategy didn't work out for him, either.

But the lemmings keep moving off the cliff, so let's move to Hillary Clinton.

Clinton amassed $154 million in her initial war chest, and instead of it buying her the nomination, she spent the second half of the year fighting like the dickens against upstart Bernie Sanders to simply secure the nomination.

Big money didn't help her, either.

Yet Democrats are still pursuing this strategy.  They certainly did with the Jon Ossoff bid for Congress.

The one that was learned from the Trump campaign is that big money piles don't translate into results.  Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, showed, in fact, that the opposite could be true, running the Trump campaign on a shoestring.  He was known for running the campaign smart, not larded up, and that brought Trump the nomination.

But would Democrats ever bother to learn from that?  Not based on this Ossoff fiasco.  It's just too comfortable to keep doing the same thing over and over.  What's the word for that?  These days, the word is "Democrat."

RECENT VIDEOS