“always had a younger challenger, it's just not a race that you notice

“You're only going to focus on the five or 10 where the younger challenger got close or won

“That, I think, could be a problematic situation going forward.

“I think that people forget how low information these contests usually are. Many primary voters really don’t know much about candidates. I think in the Michigan Senate example, that was less true. Money isn’t irrelevant, but when you have other pieces of information, that can override money. And furthermore, in that case, both of the candidates were spending millions of dollars in the primary. I mean, this is just so unique in a lot of ways.

“It’s challenging but possible

“I expect that even the challengers who lost will be back for another run in the future — they've built infrastructure and name recognition that will help them in the future.

Amanda Litman

founder of progressive group Run For Something

Axios · Aug 13
Direct quote

“Among those who run, rich candidates are also more likely to win.

“And that’s not going to mean that if you raise a lot of money, you definitely will win. That’s never been the case and that’s still not the case. But it does matter for you, it matters for who is seen to be seriously in the mix, who is perceived to be relevant. And in this cycle, just like in most cycles, virtually all contenders who are either successful or are seen as successful show support through early fundraising.