This means that an extra $300,000 would better position the campaign such that Alex Bores would be able to net an extra 1000 votes in expectation, which (as per my earlier estimate) has a 1.6% chance of counterfactually winning him the election. That would translate to $190,000 for a 1% increase in his chance of winning
Sanity check: in 2023–2024, median new/incumbent House member raised $2.4 million/$2.1 million respectively (source), and median incumbent in a “toss-up” race raised $7.9 million.
The median race raised ~10x more than the amount needed for a 1% move according to the model in OP. Is that reasonable? It sounds basically reasonable to me.
Note that “toss-up” races are races where the general election (i.e. between the Democratic and Republican candidates) is a toss-up. By guess is that in such races, an extra $2,500 spent on TV ads is necessary to net a candidate one extra vote. This is because the pool of persuadable voters is much smaller: most voters will vote for the Democrat no matter what or vote for the Republican no matter what. By contrast, spending goes a lot further in primary elections.
Sanity check: in 2023–2024, median new/incumbent House member raised $2.4 million/$2.1 million respectively (source), and median incumbent in a “toss-up” race raised $7.9 million.
The median race raised ~10x more than the amount needed for a 1% move according to the model in OP. Is that reasonable? It sounds basically reasonable to me.
Note that “toss-up” races are races where the general election (i.e. between the Democratic and Republican candidates) is a toss-up. By guess is that in such races, an extra $2,500 spent on TV ads is necessary to net a candidate one extra vote. This is because the pool of persuadable voters is much smaller: most voters will vote for the Democrat no matter what or vote for the Republican no matter what. By contrast, spending goes a lot further in primary elections.