Incumbency vs. Fundraising

I've read a lot about how incumbency is particularly strong in Massachusetts elections, especially since incumbent candidates are listed first on the ballot. I couldn't help but wonder how strong incumbency is relative to fundraising. So, I decided to dust off the Data Analysis package in Excel and commit some crimes against statistics. Unsurprisingly, both variables matter a lot.

I analyzed all Massachusetts legislative elections with multiple candidates from 2010 through 2022. Incumbency and raising the most money have strong positive coefficients (0.58 and 0.34, respectively) relative to winning the election (dummy=1), and both were statistically significant. But what about races where there is no incumbent? Raising the most money in those elections has a coefficient of 0.67, a t-stat of 20, and an R-squared of 0.45. So, if there's no incumbent, winning the fundraising race is a strong leading indicator.

I’m still learning about the campaign landscape, but I’m curious how candidates set their fundraising goals. What tools and service providers do they use to assess their standing in a race? How do they know what levers to pull, and when to put their foot on the gas? Obviously, in big races, there are analysts who make predictions and platforms that create markets on election outcomes. Is there an opportunity to introduce a more dynamic, data-driven set of tools for campaigns to both refine their strategy and better serve their prospective constituents?