Historically, has the presidential candidate with the most $$$ always won?

[cali]

it seems that way from the little research I've done.

[barbtries]

1. probably.

but thanks to citizens united and the karl roves and koch brothers etc, this election will be like no other when it comes to the amount of money spent. if that part of history can change so can the part that says he that spends the most will win.

remember CA. money did not buy the governorship, and it will not buy the presidency. cannot.

[elleng]

2. I doubt there are any good numbers on this,

that is, historically based, as its only been in relatively recent years that $ has appeared to be so important. Of course, the culture has changed in those years too, as more media-based, and the media has changed, radio>newspapers>tv>cabletv>interwebs>socialmedia.

[pnwmom]

3. Historically, that's the incumbent. So this is a unique situation. n/t

[RagAss]

4. You mean the most money in Onshore accounts?

[Initech]

5. Meg Whitman blew $300 million trying to buy the governor's office and lost big time.

And her campaign was filled with so much negative propaganda against Jerry Brown that it would even make Joseph Goebbels angry.

[Journeyman]

6. John Connally out-raised and outspent every other Republican candidate for President in 1980 . . .

and managed to secure the support of only one delegate.

He had some unique problems that set him apart from Romney (for one, he switched parties just 7 years before his disastrous run), but he remains an object lesson in one political reality: All the money in the world can't buy support if you don't have a product worth selling.

Think "New Coke."