bfdd's problem as he writes about how she 'needs to spend that much to win because she's at a disadvantage in a Democratic state' is his assumption she has the RIGHT to win.
She doesn't.
What I mean by that, is that Democracy is about the people picking who they want. Someone who's not who they want doesn't have a right to get elected anyway.
The phrase 'right to get elected' means 'in spite of the voters' preferences'.
His logic could be used to justify any wrong for someone to 'need' to do to get elected.
Imagine the head of the KKK decides to run, and understandably, has low poll numbers. If he then finds a way to spend 100 times more than his opponent, finds a way to steal votes, and so on, one could say, 'well he NEEDED to do those things to get elected'. This is meant to be extreme to point out the error in his logic.
Big money buying advertising is designed to DEFEAT Democracy by BUYING changes to public opinion, rather than what democracy is intended to do, give people their choice.
"I'm a billionare, I want to be governor to legalize eating puppies because they taste good. 5% of voters will vote for that. Here's a billion dollars - make tens of thousands of ads, that attack the opponent, that don't talk about puppy recipes but promise prosperity and other nice things, and change those poll numbers." He wins.
That's not real 'democracy'. That's Dollarmocracy. Her agenda is arguably far worse than new meaning to 'doggy bags' - to FURTHER bankrupt the state for the rich.