Lowell,
I will speak to an observation on a local level-the Chesterfield BoS races.  In the one race that was won by a Democrat, there was precious little money.  However, he went up against a GOP Chair of the Board who had been in office for the past 11 years.  As I said in an earlier comment, the negative sentiment of uncontrolled growth and the all GOP board being heavily funded by developers seemed to make all the difference.  Voters wanted something new and they said so over and over.  This candidate had good support from the Dem Committee in his district, with excellent poll coverage on election day, some phone banking, and one mailer that arrived on Monday or Tuesday.  In this case, the lack of money wasn't a factor--it was the strong desire for a change and an affable candidate out there talking to people.

and thus be able to figure out how much more is needed to meet the minimums to be a credible contender.... Does that make sense??

You are asking the questions that at today's standards, "What is the minimum necessary amount money to even run" or to say it another way, what is the "Critical Mass" for a given point or multiple points in a campaign that needs to be raised and used effectively. This could be either in comparison to the opponent's efforts like Chap to JMDD with really big numbers or the other way as an absolute minimum to get sufficient results using Radio/TV, mailings, and of course sufficient competent paid staff.

I realize that every race will vary some what, but certain constants seem almost necessary such as certain staff members and when, as well as even "signs per voters" needing to be reached and when.

To further complicate this, if there is a primary, how much of the resources necessary to be expended for that can or will carry over to the general election.

It seems looking at this from a thirty thousand foot level and on the average, the delegates that won burned through around $300k total each and the Senators as much as double that or $600k (which works since they have to run half as often).

I guess this begs the question that when you consider that they get paid, if they win, $17k or $18k respectfully... aren't we creating a culture and a legislature that is "the best that money can buy"......

but beyond that, I really wonder if you simply get into "diminishing marginal returns." 

In Virginia state races, there is no limit as to source or amount of contributions.  So unlike federal races, it is far less accurate to describe funds "raised" by candidates -- for most, a large amount of their funds are funneled in by the parties and related organizations.  That being said, talking the party and related organizations into investing in your race is a skill in of itself. 

This year, the Democrats were on equal or better footing with the Republicans in regarding funneled money, which is probably the biggest reason for the many successful results.  Some notable failures regarding where this money was spent is probably the biggest reason for some of the failures. 

The money that goes into these races should tell you a lot about the results expected of those elected. 

If you look at the very lopsided money in the Loudon County Board races, two of the three really lopsided one lost despite huge cash advantages (Staton and Snow both lost, thank goodness).  The third corrupt and overfunded supervisor (Delgaudio) managed to hang on, but only by a pretty narrow margin against Jeanne West who raised a lot less money and did very well.

On the other hand, turnout in fast growing Prince William County was huge in raw numbers (percentange was in line with the rest of the state, but growth has made the districts enormous) and money was flying on both sides of the races that are mostly in the county.  It was fierce and empassioned.

DPVA better pay attention, because even those who lost their elections are huge winners for putting up such a fight and drawing enormous resources from the GOP.  Roemmelt, Rishell, Pandak, Day, Schultz, and Martinez are enormous winners even though they lost their elections because they turned out more voters than voted in entire races elsewhere.  The Republicans just turned out even more still.

I'd add Connie Brennan to the winners list too - really big turnout numbers.

is critical in a year like this:

Consider the down ticket races: democrats swept into the at-large seats on the Fairfax School Board -- including Jim Raney -- who did not plaster the medians with signs like Paul Constantino did. Constrained by the Hatch Act -- did little campaigning at all, and had little to run on but endorsements.

Elizabeth Griffith -- a political newcomer -- essentially tied with Tessie Wilson -- a popular incumbent -- for the Braddock District seat, despite little money, and little support from local democratic office holders.

Dale Evans almost displaced the Republican incumbent for Clerk of Court even though he entered the race very late in August after David Miller withdrew.

Among the key factors was a strong democratic presence at the polling places, where sample ballots provided the information needed for democrats to vote the ticket, and precinct letters which informed people who was on the ticket.

The Republicans didn't match this, and paid for it. And with just a little extra push, they would have paid much more severely.

But something must be done about the vast contributions: to some of the big republican donors, the sums they spent on this election was chump change: they could afford far more. And if they spent it better, our ground operation might be hard-pressed to match them.

 

With more money in the races this year, you definitely had diminishing returns and maybe even had some counter-productivity.  I volunteered for two candidates.  I worked the polls all day.  Yet, I was throwing away my OWN CANDIDATES' mailers unread when I was getting them EVERY SINGLE DAY!

On election day and the two days before, my household received about 18 calls encouraging us to vote, most of them robo-calls.  There I was, yelling at robots!  Several of the calls came from my candidates, but most were from outside groups who thought that they were helping.

Many people at the polls complained bitterly about the number of signs this year, and echoed my complaints about the number of calls and mailers (wasting trees).  Those complaints weren't directed at particular candidates, though.

Too much money might not hurt, but it needs to be used more wisely, at least.