

If you take the numbers for spending and just look at competitive elections, the correlation is very weak if non-existent. Harris and Clinton both outspent trump and yet lost their elections.
More money tends to be spent on individual competitive elections, but the spending on competitive elections is not correlated well with winning, and there are way more safe elections than there are competitive elections. So more money tends to get spent over all across the many safe elections than on the few competitive, and very few donations go to the unfavored candidates in safe elections. Creating the illusion that higher spending correlates with success.
Ultimately the money flows to those liable to win because that is the best spend per dollar for someone trying to buy influence. And those safe seats need lots of money for their campaigns as a way to reward to those who have worked for them, but can’t be guaranteed further promotion do to a lack of opportunities. The rewards being things like lucrative consultant positions.
the consent manufacturing machine is really at full tilt right now.
I think Israel is reaching the end of the patience of a lot of public figures in the west and they’re trying to regain the news cycle by pivoting the focus away from their attempts to clear out the strip of people for the sake of land development.
Major mainstream media outlets were finally starting to go “hey they shot at a bunch of people waiting in line for food… what the fuck?” and so now a new conflict must occur to lead news cycles and force public figures to take a side.