Romneys got it....but they all kinda suck lol

i disagree about romney winning, although he certainly could. santorum has momentum and there isn't enough time to attack him, or slow the momentum. no one's going to pay attention on NYE or NYD and monday is the last day before the caucus. romney meanwhile is stagnant, he can't move beyond 24% and paul is sliding backwards. If santorum is viewed as a legitimate culturally conservative candidate he could wins large swaths of bachmann, perry and newt's support, allowing for a victory,or even a blowout. it's not guaranteed, but my money is,for the moment,on santorum.

are you referring to the caucus part? a caucus is a gathering of party members (although anyone can switch parties to vote) where speeches are made and voting takes place. it usually lasts about an hour or an hour and a half. in contrast, a primary is just where people go in, receive a ballot and vote. it usually lasts about 12 hours, from 7-7, or 8-8, although it varies by state. caucuses are nothing more than overblown straw polls and tend to favor those with free time, child care, or no children (the retired especially.) Primaries meanwhile, with their wide frame of time for voting are more inclusive.

They're not far ahead, the outside groups have heavily favored republicans. Further, up until CFR the Democrats relied on large donations from a few individuals while republicans utilized smaller donations from more people.

Also, money can't buy an election, it just tends to find its way in those most likely to win. Look at the senate results from 2010, plenty of candidates won, despite being outspent by huge clips. Consider sen. Blanche Lincoln in AR who spent Linda McMahon in CT who spent four times more than her opponent and lost by 21 points. or santorum in 2006, who spent 1.59 times more than casey, but lost by 18. There's also Linda McMahon, who spent eight times as much as Richard Blumenthal during the 2010 CT senate race and lost by ten points.

Candidates who raise more money are usually better candidates, have the power of incumbency, or are in a state/district that are favorable to their party. Money gravitates to those likelier to win, or those who have connections. If they can be beaten, even with money, they likely will be beaten, or it will at least be close. Further, as shown in CT showed, if a candidate, Blumenthal, can't be beaten, you can throw bag after bag of money at them and they'll still win.