Slanted playing fields

Another reason it is important to win, especially for Democrats:

In races where the incumbent won by less than 60% or more (in other words, races where it wasn't a blowout), the challengers on average raised $894,000 less than the incumbent. This gap has widened considerably since 2002 and 2000 when the spread was $608,000 and $554,000, respectively. (Data provided by the Campaign Finance Institute)

Democratic challengers appear to be doing worse. In the same set of races, the incumbent Republican outspent the Democrat challenger by more than $1 million dollars in 2004. In contrast, Republican challengers were “only” outspent by Democratic incumbents by roughly $712,000. (The Democratic disadvantage was roughly $496,000 in 2002 and only $387,000 in 2000.)

I think some of the Republican advantage comes from the fact that they seem to be on TV all the time selling themselves and their ideas at large. They have created more national figures than the Democrats have been able to, especially in those that run for office. Obviously party leadership would have to do more to sheppard local and state figures into national prominence. I'm not sure what else would help.

Anyone with ideas on this one?