{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.014807502467917079, 'fraction_numerical': 0.007897334649555774, 'mean_word_length': 5.2592592592592595, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Early Money And Senate Primary Elections

This article investigates the role of early money in Senate primary elections. The data show that in elections from 1988 to 1996, early money played an indirect role by leading to more money raised in the normal (nonearly) electoral period but not by directly affecting election outcomes. This dynamic exists while controlling for factors such as previous political experience and candidate wealth, so it is not simply the case that early money is following the more experienced candidates or reflecting personal resources. These results confirm the viewthat the possession of early money signals political elites that a candidate is credible. The conclusions are similar to those of some previous researchers, although this study focuses on a different electoral arena and a different type of election and uses a different specification of the “early” variables. Early money does not specifically benefit female candidates, however, which has not been previously tested.