election results:how big a factor is party funding?

Money ultimately chooses the winner - so I would say the party campaign funds help tremendously.

They primarily benefit down ticket candidates though who do not have the funds to compete in TV advertising.

no, a candidates' qualities will filter through no matter how much funding takes place. Look at the RNC and PAC's--they were not enough to stop obama--who raised an astronomical sum from small private donations. Those donors (of which i was not one) propelled obama. Well, that and an impressive show of grass roots support from the little people (of which i was one), not to mention his organizational skills (which i just mentioned).

Not necessarily. Plenty of self-funded wealthy candidates have crashed and burned (Perot, Forbes, Romney). If I remember right, Kerry (slightly) outraised Bush in 2004. Of course, it is a factor.

No. no longer this time. there is basically too a lot at stake. I fairly have voted Libertarian contained in the previous, on the idea that there wasn't sufficient distinction between both important party applicants. Or quite, that i could no longer ensure which part of my values i'd compromise as a thanks to vote for between the important party applicants. yet this time the issue is so very clean: it truly is Obama or it truly is chaos.

Usually someone who has more party funds wins

Money helps tremendously, and if you think about it, that makes sense. Donating money is simply voting with your wallet. So if a lot more people voted for Obama with their wallets, he should win.