The breakdown of campaign spending and votes in the recent mayoral primary may be telling.  Challenger Kevin Johnson raised nearly $600k and loaned himself $500k for his campaign.  He spent all of that money and received 32,160 votes. The Bee calculates that more precisely as $34.72 spent per vote.  Mayor Fargo, on the other hand, raised about $380k and earned 27,472 votes. She spent about $13.24 per vote.  She didn’t loan herself any money.

Should we take anything from this? Fargo couldn’t raise more? Personal loans shouldn’t be allowed? Money doesn’t guarantee electoral success? (See: Checchi, Al; Harman, Jane; Angelides, Phil) Or does the notion of calculating per vote cost rub your inner die-hard democracy lover the wrong way? (It shouldn’t, it’s a basic political science data point, but I kinda know what you mean.)  In 2000, Fargo beat a challenger who outspent her by about $500k.  So is she that good? Is comparing 2000 with 2008 and apples/oranges situation?  And if we adjust for the powerful incumbency factor that gives all officeholders a boost, is she left with any advantage at all? 

Related posts:

1. Taxing…on all of us
2. I am not a cover girl.
3. Progress? Really?
4. Soundoff!!!
5. Arnold, Part Two